From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #19 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Thursday, 17 November 1994 Volume 01 : Number 019 RULES OF THE ROAD 1. Do not include large sections of a message in your reply. Especially not to say "Yeah, I agree." Those who do will be lynched. 2. Use an appropriate Subject line. RQR: will be prepended to it. 3. Do not engage in a point-by-point analysis or rebuttal of another person's message. It is too confusing for others to follow, qualifies as nit-picking, and it usually leads to flame wars. 4. There is no number 4. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: RQR: Realism in RQ combat, other matters... Re: RQR: Re: Spirit Combat ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brent Michael Krupp Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 20:21:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: RQR: Realism in RQ combat, other matters... On Thu, 17 Nov 1994 gal502@anu.edu.au wrote: > My feelings on realism in RQ (given I have no actual combat experience): > > To me, the important thing is that a game be realistic within the level > of the simulation it is attempting. What I mean by this is that if a game > chooses to model a particular facet of combat, the results of playing the > rule system should be realistic. > > Graeme Lindsell a.k.a Graeme.Lindsell@anu.edu.au I'd like to be the first to second Graeme's excellent and (IMHO) spot-on remarks. It is mildly interesting to watch discussions of real-life combat (or combat sport), but the real issue is the game, and game reality (and MGF). "Realism" is important for suspension of disbelief, but it really should come second to modelling the kind of fantasy (possibly Gloranthan) reality we're looking for. As an aside, I'd note that the somewhat complex issue of making combat more "realistic" always makes me think that we would then also need to make injury and wounding and healing more "realistic" -- and that is a substantially more difficult task, as this side of the combat rules is far more unreal than the attack/parry part of it. Brent Krupp (fletcher@u.washington.edu) ------------------------------ From: Keith Ivey Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 23:24:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: RQR: Re: Spirit Combat On Wed, 16 Nov 1994, Jon Green wrote: > > >> Use the following formula: yourMP / (yourMP + opponentsMP) * 100 [...] > > The lookup-chart wouldn't have to be any bigger than the current > > one, would it? > > Yep - it'd be 21x42 (assuming standard ranges), doublling the size of > the existing table. Calculating off-table values would require a > calculator, rather than simple mental arithmetic. I agree the difficulty of calculation is a problem, but where do you get 21x42 from? Just as in the current table, you need a matrix of active value versus passive value. If you have values 1 through 21 for each, that gives a 21x21 matrix. Why double it? > Whilst in game-play terms (the MGF factor again), the scales do > accelerate very rapidly in favour of the stronger contestant, that > does reflect the "dominance or submission" school of spirit combat The problem is not that the values change rapidly in favor of the stronger combatant, but that the way they change is based on the difference, rather than the ratio, between the values for the two combatants. Do you really think that a combat between opponents with 3 and 13 MP should be (as far as the attack probabilities are concerned) the same as one between opponents with 43 and 53 MP (or 993 and 1003 MP)? Surely it's better to have a 5-against-10 fight be similar to a 12-against-24 or 50-against-100 fight. The proposed system may be flawed in favoring the underdog too much, but that could be fixed by changing the formula. I'm not sure how much difference the complexity of the formula makes, anyway. Some people have written that they use the resistance table now, even though the formula should be easy to calculate. - --Keith Ivey Washington, DC ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #19 ****************************** This is the bottom of the RuneQuest Rules Digest. RuneQuest is a trademark of Avalon Hill, and Glorantha is a trademark of Chaosium. With the exception of previously copyrighted material, unless specified otherwise all text in this digest is copyright by the author or authors, with rights granted to copy for personal use, to excerpt in reviews and replies, and to archive unchanged for electronic retrieval. Send electronic mail to Majordomo@hops.wharton.upenn.edu with "help" in the body of the message for subscription information on this and other mailing lists.