Ye Olde Inn

So I have a query on preference, more on dungeoncrawls in general than specificly HQ.

What do you guys prefer, having a gamemaster (evil wizard) who has a ready planned map and acts as the board setup'er as you play? Ala Heroquest

Or no GM, just hero players who use a system of tables/cards to randomly generate the dungeon as they play? Ala Warhammer Quest

Something else, like a weird combination of the two? Ala Advanced Heroquest ... or something different entirely?

The original Warhammer Quest supported both a random co-op and a role-playing section that used a GM and preset map. So I voted for a mix. I never got far in the the latter role-play version, though to me that was what I liked best about that game.

The new Warhammer Quest: Silver Tower offers a much-improved combat experience. I daresay that co-op would work for me as everybody I know wants to play a Hero.

I voted GM. But to elaborate I really like the setup of games like HQ, where the GM is the 5th player and not just the "storyteller".
You get the scenario (quest, adventure, dungeon) and the specific conditions for that scenario is clearly lined up. The GM has no influence on the setup.
But once the game starts he is a player trying to win (e.g. slay all the heroes)!

That means the monsters play smart, they can ambush or target the weakest link.
AI mechanics are fine I guess, but it can't beat a real player.
Besides I kinda like thwarting heroes!

I play GM style. I tend to go with a basic map design in my head if I am not using a prefab mission.
I will adjust the amount of monsters, and difficulty of play to match where my players are at. If they are good at this dungeon crawl thing...they will go through a meat grinder.

My main goal is to have a great evening of fun and laughs. My secondary goal is to punish idiocy and reward intelligence. Once everything is settled in, and I have figured out the capabilities of the players and their heroes, and I am sure they understand their goals...I go for blood. I am not going to let them just win they have to work for it. I'd say they have about a 40% failure rate. Not all epic bands of heroes survive their missions...Thems is the breaks. muhahaha

So I voted GM, mostly because I feel like those games do run a bit deeper. But there is a caveat in that seeing as we are in the midst of a serious golden age of Co-Op games there is a ton to choose from.

The big advantage for me anyway, is that Co-Op allows for minimal prep-work and generally straightforward set-up. Now a game like HQ requires a lot less set-up of course, but when looking at games like Descent 2.0, Imperial Assault, Shadows of Brimstone, and so on, somebody NEEDS to be very familiar with the rules and also relatively familiar with the scenario the players will be tackling in a given session.

Add to this, that my gaming groups seem to be pretty fluid these days, and it means that there is a chance that at least one if not several players have never played a particular game... So simple Co-Op (Zcide for example) games are easier to manage these days--again for me.

But my real preference, all things being equal, is a 1 v all situation where players can develop their characters a bit and as the GM I can add story elements as needed.

maj!

cynthialee wrote:My secondary goal is to punish idiocy and reward intelligence.

The game does that itself and much more satisfyingly if you stick to what's written before hand, just like a real adventure would instead of tailoring itself to the heroes current situation.

cynthialee wrote:I'd say they have about a 40% failure rate.

But it's whatever YOU want it to be. The players have no real control over anything.

cynthialee wrote:Not all epic bands of heroes survive their missions...

Not if YOU don't want them to no. I could never play it like that. Don;t know how you or your players can, but...

cynthialee wrote:My main goal is to have a great evening of fun and laughs.

I spose that's all that matters.

There's no right or wrong way to play, only preferences.
It seems cynth has taken the peculiar route of being a straight up storyteller who just happens to tell a story of death 40 % of the time.

I sort of agree with GB here. Part of the fun is overcoming impossible odds or being thwarted by something trivial.
If a bad streak is followed by a cupboard of healing potions, while lucky rolls just are punished by meeting harder monsters... well...

But again... preferences...

Gold Bearer wrote:

cynthialee wrote:My secondary goal is to punish idiocy and reward intelligence.

The game does that itself and much more satisfyingly if you stick to what's written before hand, just like a real adventure would instead of tailoring itself to the heroes current situation.

cynthialee wrote:I'd say they have about a 40% failure rate.

But it's whatever YOU want it to be. The players have no real control over anything.

cynthialee wrote:Not all epic bands of heroes survive their missions...

Not if YOU don't want them to no. I could never play it like that. Don;t know how you or your players can, but...

cynthialee wrote:My main goal is to have a great evening of fun and laughs.

I spose that's all that matters.

why you always busting my chops and parsing out my posts?!

I have played it as written. We did for a very long time. I was playing this game since 20+ years ago. I know what the hell I am doing and will be doing so for many more years.

Back off me dude.

cynthialee wrote:why you always busting my chops and parsing out my posts?!

I have played it as written. We did for a very long time. I was playing this game since 20+ years ago. I know what the hell I am doing and will be doing so for many more years.

Back off me dude.

Hi Cyn,

GB parses everyone's posts. And when he does (like the rest of us), he does it to comment on his version of things. He's certainly not singling YOU out.

He's been pretty clear for a while about the game being played with a rigid script (even with custom expansions). I too play this way (but I can go months between games) and when I'm play-testing a quest I will alter a mechanic mid-stream if it is too powerful (or too weak). The last time this happened, I had a ghost type entity which traveled through walls and resurrected itself 2 turns after being destroyed or some such thing. And I clarified the counting method to mean that Zargon plays exactly two turns without the specter (the dungeon was not being explored very quickly). My objective is to match the heroes' equipment level to my quests and come within a dice roll of killing one or two heroes. If a thumb on the scale keeps my boss alive one more turn to do something nasty/interesting, I will do it. I've gotten better at writing boss mechanics into the quests so they are not killed too quickly. So in the end I do agree with GB on this point.

Very few people follow ALL of the original rules and everyone does *something* different. For GB, I seem to recall that he plays quests with a Groundhog Day, Lazarus, Video game style do-over loop, which likely finds even less support on the forum than your RPG cross-over style. To each his/her own.

I like the Game master variant more, mainly because there can be a narrative in the dungeon setup that ties nicely with the narrative of the quest note and the overall campaign story.

A random dungeon is just that: random. Random means you remove any information and replace it with noise. There is no narrative and no thought-through setup. It's just... a row of rooms. For me that's boring. I need a story.

That said, sometimes, with a certain player type, it becomes a screaming match 4 against one about some rule details. With this type of player certainly cooperative is better.

Now if there would be a way to make it storyline driven and cooperative at the same time, I would like that most.