I think that HQ2 would not be "worse" in that respect. One thing you might want to consider is to start the existing heroes off in HQ2 with charGen-level skills and re-scale the opposition skill levels so that the players are still the same relatively.
I'd really be interesting to know what signature aspects were broken. Would you mind telling me off-list?
Matthew
From: HeroQuest-rules_at_yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HeroQuest-rules_at_yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Blackburn
Sent: 30 April 2009 07:57
To: HeroQuest-rules_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: HeroQuest (2nd Ed) will be avaible this
June!
In article <p06240810c61e26913568_at_[10.40.22.202]>, David Dunham
<david_at_a-sharp. <mailto:david%40a-sharp.com> com> writes
>So now's the time to wrap up those HQ1 campaigns. I consider HQ2
>broadly compatible with HQ1 supplements, but not necessarily with HQ1
>*player characters*. Especially if you're playing in Glorantha.
Heh, still playing my original campaign to HeroWars rules here, thank you very much. HQ1 broke too many signature aspects of the existing characters (to no great benefit to my mind). HQ2 would presumably be "worse" in this respect.
OK, the characters at 259 sessions are horribly powerful, but that leads to its own interesting choices and scenarios. Oh, and my Glorantha has varied a lot (Kallyr still on the throne in 1628, Argrath sulking in Wintertop, and a worrying resurgence of "impossible" dragon magic amongst humans - together with a flight of dragons).
-- Kevin Blackburn Kevin_at_fairbruk. <mailto:Kevin%40fairbruk.demon.co.uk> demon.co.uk
Powered by hypermail