I can see how, at first, this(*) seems a good idea. I would consider, however, doing a less than complete job.
The reason for this is:
As I'm sure you've read in the HQ book, your players' characters will be
able to do much more than just those derived ability lists. You may think
that these are still a good starting point, and you may be right, but I
think there will be a tendancy to stick to 'abilities we know' rather than
use HQ to it's fullest.
I'm not sure how clear that was, now that it's escaped my head. :)
A suggestion: I expect you already have a list of keywords and players who know what they mean. How about just using the keywords and adding abilities during play? This may make for a more creative experience for everyone? They can do anything implied in the D&D book without having to write in the ability.
For players who don't know what the keywords mean, you could just give them the D&D book and let them read the relevant section. I suspect you are not looking to repeat your experience with D&D, using HQ.
HQ is a great system that should let you play in any setting/genre with minimal preparation.
For instance, I ran a game a little while ago that had the setting/genre: "The Hobbit" - yep that was the setting and the genre. Only one person had not read the book but they had all seen the LotR films. We did not need to work out any Middle Earth keywords, we just concentrated on the keywords and abilities that everyone agreed fitted the characters.
One person played Thorin and so we all knew everything about him. One person played a hobbit (not Bilbo) and made up a very interesting girl focussing on character traits mixed with abilities that went with them. Another person played a dwarf (not from the book) and just used general dwarf stereotypes and other fun stuff to arrive at abilities. Their main keywords were the central aspect of their character, so: Thorin Oakenshield, Keen Adventurer and Dward Hunter.
(To Santo: have you tried just playing a character in a HQ2 game? Do I detect that you have either just read the book or just run a game?)
On 4 August 2011 17:23, Santo Sengupta <aumshantih_at_...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Namaste:
>
> I'm a HeroQuest 1.0 Grognard - 2.0 is nifty, but the lack of simultationism
> left me a bit cold. I *liked* knowing what M2 vs M4 or even crazy M7-9
> meant in Glorantha, regardless of game balance issues.
>
> Here's my take:
>
> Actually, 4E would be really easy to convert, as all their nifty Abilities
> and Class Features and Powers can just be used as HQ Abilities names.
>
> For example:
> Keyword: Eladrin
> Natural Fey Humanoid, Low Light Vision, Speak Common, Speak Elven, Eladrin
> Education, Eladrin Longsword Training, Eladrin Will, Fey Step, Trance State
>
> Keyword: Wizard
> Wear Cloth Armor, Wield Dagger/Staff, Use [Magic Implement], Strong Will,
> Arcana + 3 Skills, Wizard Cantrips, Ritual Casting, Spellbook.
>
> Class Features/Feats/Powers you'd just use the name of it.
>
> As folks level up, they can add to Keywords/individual skills, and unlock
> more feats/powers/crunch as per "normal" DnD. Hell, "Level" could be this
> meta keyword, and you could roughly map them to mastery levels.
>
> -Santo
> aum shanti shanti shantih.
> "The world is like the impression left by the telling of a story." - from
> the Yoga Vāsiṣṭha
>
>
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail