Runboard.com
You're welcome.
Community logo






runboard.com       Register for a free global account (learn about it) | Log in: (), globally (lost password?)

 
Timberwulf Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Lord

Registered: 04-2003
Posts: 128
Reply | Quote
Versus and Single-Player Quest


Not willing to let DCQ go the way of the WHQ 2nd Ed (no, that wasn't a new cliche, that was a call to arms in another thread), I considered this idea:

What about a WHQ game where the players aren't on the same side?

I thought for a while and came up with two varients to the theme. The first would be to have two parties in the same dungeon, possibly converging on some central Objective room. The winner would be the party that completes the objective, gets the most gold, suffers the least wounds... we'd need a scoring system.

The second idea was to work with the DCQ theme: and have one player controlling the players while another mans the horde of viscious monsters reacting to the sudden attack: laying traps, rousing unfriendly locals, throwing some gold in the direction of occasional allies...

Any thoughts?


Also: What warrior classes would you say are best suited to a single player campaign of quest? I've already mentioned the Questing Knight.
17/Mar/2005, 9:31 am Link to this post Send Email to Timberwulf   Send PM to Timberwulf
 
AncientNomad Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Lord

Registered: 04-2004
Location: In the graveyard
Posts: 102
Reply | Quote
Re: Versus and Single-Player Quest


I think this sounds like a really good idea, would be interesting to see how it works out.
But how do you plan to do with the dungeon design? Would the players still draw cards and explore, or would you have a ready design to play? It could be cool to have to parties going through the dungeon from different ways, and to have to doors to the objective room, one for each team.
Or if you just let one (but for some reason i prefer two) player(s) play the monsters, maybe if you had a system for them to gain levels like the warriors does... I don't know...
But keep working on the idea!
17/Mar/2005, 10:28 am Link to this post Send Email to AncientNomad   Send PM to AncientNomad
 
thecustodian Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

God

Registered: 04-2003
Location: The Temple
Posts: 809
Reply | Quote
Re: Versus and Single-Player Quest


Funny you should ask...
I played at least one adventure with two parties of two warriors going for one objective. I don't think we ever finished it, actually.

However, some time ago I drew up plans for a Grand Tournament of Quest- up to six teams in one arena, each trying for the one prize. There would be a Team of Dwarfs, Elves, 'Holy' Warriors, 'Evil' Warriors, Imperial Humans and Wild Humans. They each have one team that they Hate, but apart from that, teams can ally or vendetta as they choose.
Unfortunately, with about 24 warriors to look after, it's an unworkable concept for one GM, and that's without the monsters. Nice to dream, though, and I still have my notes somewhere.

As for a solo fighter, I think it would have to be some sort of Wizard, or at least a character that can access some magic. Elf Ranger Knight? The Trollslayer might be interesting, too.

Oh, and I forgot to mention, we did try creating our own 'Dungeon Keeper' game with Quest. It was quite good- snotlings were Imps, and excavated the rooms, and you periodically got attacked by Heros. Nothing as cool as DCQ though.
17/Mar/2005, 11:16 am Link to this post Send Email to thecustodian   Send PM to thecustodian
 
BassJam Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Lord

Registered: 07-2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 539
Reply | Quote
Re: Versus and Single-Player Quest


Ho boy. I may have told this story before. I DID do this once. I was playing alot with my siblings and we had too many damn characters at one point. So I decided to have a competition where we each took a "stable" of 4 Warriors into a huge dungeon. Each of us started at different entrances and eventually we'd hit the "core" deck of cards which would be the central dungeon. The adventure took like 4 nights to play out...

The problem was, I didn't have as many as my brother and sister, and my brother's Wizard was by far the most powerful character in the game. When he met my sister's party, he started terrorizing her people as they were in battle for their lives against a random encounter. His evil bastard of a Wizard was coercing her party leaders to give him a share of their treasure and he'd "let them live". When she got upset and refused, he'd toss a random spell into the mix or heal a Monster... It was downright evil.

Meanwhile... well, let's just say my party never made it to the party...

---
"Mine is a high art. I wound with cruelty those who would harm me." - Archillicus
17/Mar/2005, 11:58 am Link to this post Send Email to BassJam   Send PM to BassJam
 
Andrew Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 04-2003
Location: The Waterfront Tavern
Posts: 187
Reply | Quote
Re: Versus and Single-Player Quest


It sounds like a good idea. Perhaps for a random dungeon you could have 2 dungeon decks that the two teams explore, then the first team to draw the Objective Room places it. The other team then has to draw their own Objective Room card, which coincides with the one already in play. So you could have a team battling already, when the opposing team marches in, kills the last Snotling or whatever, and claims the reward!
17/Mar/2005, 1:37 pm Link to this post Send Email to Andrew MSN
 


Add a reply





You are not logged in (login)