Heroica RPG Rules & FAQ

[Zepher]

I really think that making the general levels for a quest similar is really the only solution that we need. My heroes are a little under a 15 level range, and they still can essentially function well together. It's only when the gap becomes 20 or 25 levels that it becomes an issue. Quests have always had a "level window". This is the reason why.

[Flipz]

An easier solution would be to keep the levels of heroes on a quest about the same, or carefully design quests that are meant for mismatched parties.

I have to agree 100% with Sandy here, this is a convention (in pretty much EVERY RPG I've ever heard of) and therefore must be there for a reason.

To be blunt, numerical Levels for mismatched Hero parties are the worst thing you can do. If you've got a serious level gap, conditional enemy levels (like the ??? and -- -Level enemies Kinto and Endgame are fond of using) are your best friend. Also, AoE enemy specials are right out--they're already a little unfair by one Hero's misfortune affecting everyone else on the team (well, not unfair, but not completely fair either--I don't think English has a word for it), but in a mismatched situation they're deadly, wiping out all the lower levels just because one high-level party member rolled Special Damage.

[Waterbrick Down]

An easier solution would be to keep the levels of heroes on a quest about the same, or carefully design quests that are meant for mismatched parties.

I have to agree 100% with Sandy here, this is a convention (in pretty much EVERY RPG I've ever heard of) and therefore must be there for a reason.

I found the exact opposite to be true in nearly all other RPG's (D&D, FATE, Marvel HRP, Archmage) which is why Heroica seems like the breaker in tradition to me, not that there is anything wrong with breaking from tradition.

[Chromeknight]

To be blunt, numerical Levels for mismatched Hero parties are the worst thing you can do. If you've got a serious level gap, conditional enemy levels (like the ??? and -- -Level enemies Kinto and Endgame are fond of using) are your best friend. Also, AoE enemy specials are right out--they're already a little unfair by one Hero's misfortune affecting everyone else on the team (well, not unfair, but not completely fair either--I don't think English has a word for it), but in a mismatched situation they're deadly, wiping out all the lower levels just because one high-level party member rolled Special Damage.

Which is what happened in #88.

Most of the heroes there could possibly have solo'd that battle (albeit taking a stupid long time) but some couldn't even take one hit from any enemy. Of course those heroes aren't going to be a priority for revival, they weren't contributing very much to winning the battle. So there's a kind of logic to their not getting experience anyway.

If individual QMs are finding it an issue, perhaps toss in a side battle for the players that missed out. Pitched at their level and intended to even things out.

[JimBee]

The gap exists because low level heroes don't gain experience because they are considered low priority on the revival spectrum. If a party member is going to be injured (I'd suggest every other round) as opposed to only a level of experience lower than you, you are much more likely to revive them. I wouldn't say the problem is the gap, there's always going to be a gap, the issue is revivals don't happen because the consequence of being KO'd is too mild and doesn't really affect the party as a whole.

That also makes it important to either have a balanced party of similar level, or if the QM is able, balance the enemies to accommodate characters of varying levels. The enemies in 88 were pretty hard to beat with level 7's.

EDIT: Left the posting window open while other people said the exact same thing. Sorry.

[Tachyon]

Should you really be able to take advantage of Hexing ?

I think that while you are hexed you shouldn't be able to do nothing.

If you heal, you should heal the enemy

If you attack, you should strike a teammate.

If you use items that would normally benefit a teammate, it should be used on an enemy

If you use items that would normaly harm an enemy, it should harm a teammate.

[joeshmoe554]

I thought hexed meant the hero would simply target a random hero with a normal attack. The hero himself (or herself) had no control over their actions.

[Endgame]

That is how I assumed it operated, as well.

[StickFig]

Which is what happened in #88... some couldn't even take one hit from any enemy. Of course those heroes aren't going to be a priority for revival, they weren't contributing very much to winning the battle. So there's a kind of logic to their not getting experience anyway.

As one of those "heroes," I completely agree. That was the right way for that encounter to end. Not that I liked it - some of us would have appreciated a back row but life is messy. The game should reflect that. And in any case, it makes for better roleplaying if some adventurers can be overmatched. I've got a newbie, and I'll have to play him that way, and any newbie will sometimes rush in when he or she is overmatched, and sometimes be overcautious when the situation doesn't require as much caution.

[Flipz]

I thought hexed meant the hero would simply target a random hero with a normal attack. The hero himself (or herself) had no control over their actions.

That's what it's been ruled as in the past, at least for the Arena. I'd support it being defined that way for Heroes in the main FAQ as well.

[Zepher]

They also, in fairness, only missed about three or four rounds of combat in this case - it should probably be viewed as free experience to the heroes that survived rather than missed experience to those who didn't make it.

[Chromeknight]

They also, in fairness, only missed about three or four rounds of combat in this case - it should probably be viewed as free experience to the heroes that survived rather than missed experience to those who didn't make it.

Free experience? Ain't no such thing!

I've posted about this before.

Nerwen

#13 55 days 6 levels 0.109 Rumblestrike

#21 cancelled

#29 117 days 8 levels 0.068 JimButcher (with Zepher/Brickdoctor)

#44 76 days 4 levels 0.052 Sandy

#52 71 days 6 levels 0.084 Rumblestike

#58 33 days 2 levels 0.060 Sandy

#65 86 days 4 levels 0.046 Waterbrick Down

#77 134 days 9 levels 0.067

Now, some of my favourite quests have had the lowest XP/day numbers and XP isn't the total story stats wise either (but analysing gold/loot values is even more laborious). And some of the difference is in quest availabilities, but clearly some quests are just 'faster' xp wise. A Masked quest or Sandy's outlier of #34 accrue XP at nearly four times the rate of story focussed quests or ones with large groups like Dastan or #44. Not all quests are created equal.

Depending on the quest, you're looking at ten to fourteen days of playing to tick an XP. Since the rewards at levels 30 and 40 are pretty damn shiny. People want to get there. Level 30 is 60XP (without medal/shrooms etc) and lvl 40 is 100XP. Sure, missing one XP doesn't change much in the long term. But miss a few and it feels like Level 40 is years away.

I don't want to sound whiney or like I (or others) feel entitled. Nor am I neglecting the phenomenal amount of work QMs and Master!Sandy put in. My point is this. We are all here for fun. And part of fun is a sense of progression ( see theatre post shortly). If that fun gets buried under other stuff, then why are we here?

[Flipz]

Now I want to calculate mine.

#17: 121 days 9 levels 0.074 Brickdoctor

#31: 119 days 6 levels 0.050 Brickdoctor (with Zepher/JimButcher)

#38: 40 days 2 levels 0.05 Zepher

#51: 17 days 1 level 0.059 CallMePie

#53: 99 days 3 levels 0.030 Zepher

#66: 37 days 2 levels 0.054 Sandy

#70: 39 days 3.3 levels 0.085 Endgame

#77: 134 days 2.6 levels 0.0199 Brickdoctor

#92 (ongoing): 40 days .6 levels 0.016 Zepher

Average to current (including incomplete Quests): 0.037 levels per day (26.97 days per level)

Also today is apparently my 800th day in Heroica.

[Chromeknight]

I do apologise. I wrote level above, but calculated using XP. ie. from level 12 to 13 is 2 XP and from 20.33 to 21.66 would be 4 XP.

[Flare]

What about lowering Phoenix Essence prices?

[Waterbrick Down]

What about lowering Phoenix Essence prices?

It would keep heroes in fights longer and give them more of a chance of winning, but I think QM's would just boost the difficulty of the battle to compensate for heroes getting replaced as fast. Though if a battle is balanced correctly in the first place it shouldn't make a difference. I'll shift the battle balancing conversation to the QM lounge.

[Sandy]

Should you really be able to take advantage of Hexing ?

I think that while you are hexed you shouldn't be able to do nothing.

I thought hexed meant the hero would simply target a random hero with a normal attack. The hero himself (or herself) had no control over their actions.

Yes, the hexed hero has no say what their action will be for the round. They just attack a random ally.

My point is this. We are all here for fun. And part of fun is a sense of progression ( see theatre post shortly). If that fun gets buried under other stuff, then why are we here?

Progression sure is fun, but not if you don't have to make an effort for it. I know nowadays it's usual to get "achievements" and "trophies" from videogames just by watching the starting cutscene, but I've always scoffed at that stuff.

If there's no challenge or chance of failing, why should you feel like you've achieved something? The same applies to battles - if you will get the same reward no matter how well or poorly you did in it, what's the point anymore?

This game is not just an RPG, it is an RPG with battle mechanics. There already was a plain RPG in EuroBricks years ago, but it didn't last long because there was no sense of achievement - it was all about writing a collaborative story from the perspective of your own character. Heroica RPG does that, but also includes battles, equipment, items, loot, statistics etc. to play with. It's not playing if you win by default.

[StickFig]

If there's no challenge or chance of failing, why should you feel like you've achieved something? The same applies to battles - if you will get the same reward no matter how well or poorly you did in it, what's the point anymore? ...It's not playing if you win by default.

Concur. While it would have been nice to get that free XP, giving consequences keeps the game interesting.

[Capt.JohnPaul]

Personally, I don't feel like any mechanic with Phoenix essences arw broken; so why fix it?

[Pyrovisionary]

I think we should make battles slightly more challenging, but not by making the enemies harder and more abundant, because that's power creep. Because I'm getting to a stage where battles are feeling mostly the same. I take special damage? Big whoop I can take a potion or a remedy. I get knocked out? Pheonix essence, easy. Battles seem to stretch on much longer than I feel necessary. Combat might benefit from fighting low-health high level enemies. Take a boss, make it rather powerful then stick it on 500 health, and we have an intense battle that's exciting and doesn't last too long.

However I have no experience at balancing, and running battles so this is mainly speculation at cause and effect.

[joeshmoe554]

Battles seem to stretch on much longer than I feel necessary.

The problem with a short battle is it can be very volatile. Either the heroes get good rolls and stomp the boss, or they get bad rolls and are steamrolled as a result. If the fight is a bit longer, it can be more predictable since there will be more die rolls and it will more closely represent an even distribution. Nostrums just emphasize this all the more, as a short fight with lucky heroes can often mean 0 negative rolls in the entire battle.

[Zepher]

Varying battle length is important. But as I and some of the other QMs have said as of late, what you're describing is really correct in our eyes. I know BD is making an effort, as am I, to keep enemies dangerous, but not terribly good survivors, for the most part. Both 84 and 92 have focused on that for me mechanically, and I feel that it's been working out pretty well. I would encourage others to try the technique, but it's hard to find the right balance and other people have other philosophies on battle design!

[Kintobor]

It depends, really. I want my Big Bad to be a tough fight, I want the party to have to hassle with the Special Attacks and Passive Specials and think outside the box. A party that can rinse, wash, repeat every battle isn't having the same experience as a party that rinses, washes, and OH CRUD, WE JUST USED TABASCO SAUCE!!!

Overall though, yeah, lesser battles can be quick and dirty, but I think Bosses should to some degree be a much bigger hassle.

[Flipz]

It depends, really. I want my Big Bad to be a tough fight, I want the party to have to hassle with the Special Attacks and Passive Specials and think outside the box. A party that can rinse, wash, repeat every battle isn't having the same experience as a party that rinses, washes, and OH CRUD, WE JUST USED TABASCO SAUCE!!!

Overall though, yeah, lesser battles can be quick and dirty, but I think Bosses should to some degree be a much bigger hassle.

I think part of the problem is that normal fights have started to turn into boss fights of their own accord, and thus they rob the boss fight of its thematic power. The quick and dirty fights shouldn't be a cakewalk, but they shouldn't be an insurmountable hassle where every last consumable is the difference between life and death, either. Zepher's been hitting that stride in 92, and I think it works well.

(Note also that shorter fights help tremendously in offsetting the overuse of consumables--if the fight's only going to last three or four Rounds, you'd better be absolutely certain you're going to make back the money you've spent on consumables by the end of the fight, either by the Quest offering a decent Gold payout or by the enemies dropping lots of it in their drops.)

I will say this: the "high power, low health" strategy is very definitely not as successful in parties of mixed level. Granted, with ??-Level enemies it can still sort of work, but in those fights you're almost always going to see either a massacre of the low-level Heroes (if you try for "fast and hard" for the high-levels), an absurdly easy curb-stomp (if you try to balance "fast and hard" for the low-levels), or else the high-level Heroes slowly chewing through the enemy ranks, with the low-levels used mainly to keep Free Hits manageable (if you go in for a long haul). It'd almost be better for mixed-level parties to have front battles (i.e. the "Western front" and "Eastern Front"), with both sets matched as "fast and hard" for a different Level range--that way, both ranges can have an interesting but quick fight, and the high-levels can quickly clean up the other front once "their" enemies are finished if the low-levels have terrible luck.

Also, while we're on the subject of what makes a good Quest: I think I've most enjoyed the Quests where there's time allotted for unstructured roleplay. Not necessarily structured roleplay (i.e. "you have to roleplay to get the necessary information so you can move on"), but some space in between battles to say "I will have the penne a la arabiata So, what's the non-Heroica world been doing while I was out bashing skulls?" It's a good change of pace, and helps to make up for the fact that we, as Heroes and players of this game, already have some inkling of what's going on with each other even if we don't know the specifics (thus slightly dampening some of the roleplaying possibilities).

[Palathadric]

I think WBD's actually been managing his mixed-levelled team quite well.