From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #151 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, 16 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 151 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. 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 Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. Scan and search Steven E Barnes just crits Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. Distinguishing RQ and SB Combat Systems Nils Weinander Hit locations & criticals Nigel Smith +5%/MP; Rune Power Hugh Foster Ton-up RuneQuest Hugh Foster RQ Rules Digest: V1 #150 Hugh Foster Hit locations Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. Hit locations & criticals Liam_McCauley@qsp.co.uk Skill generation revisited Brandon Brylawski RQ Rules Digest: V1 #150 Colin Watson RQ4 character generation teaser ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 00:02:29 PST Subject: Re: Scan and search Jim Chaplin asks about Scan and Search: When I first brought this current wave of RQ-Perrin-Is-Back :-) to this list one of the things I first addressed was the Scan and Search problem. For within a skill list the two could not be distinguished by my players. On reflection I would replace Scan with Awareness as it is about sighting enemies at middle anfd far distance. I would prehaps replace Search with Intuition as it is about spotting hidden thing and creative searching. Obviously this style of nomenculture will not suit everyone. ------------------------------ From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 00:09:41 -0800 Subject: Re: just crits >Okay, I'm not wedded to a critical being "0", especially if we just worry >about it for crits and not fumbles. How about anything within the normal >skill range ending in "1". This means that 01 is still a crit, but you don't >have to figure out what 10% of 57 is. > If we're doing 20% chance for specials, a roll of "2" can be a special >with a "1" being a special with a critical add-on. Why stop here; if the "ones" die determines the critical, you can use the "tens" die to determine hit location. Yeah, then it would just like Warhammer :-) - -steve ------------------------------ From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 00:32:54 PST Subject: Distinguishing RQ and SB Combat Systems I can not be the only who thinks that attempting to retain a difference between RQ and Stormbringer/Elric! combat systems is a bit bizarre? It is a bit like attempting to differentiate between D&D and Gamma World. One evolved from the other and there is no reason why this evolution should not happen again. Otherwise AH have a particularily raw deal. Greg owns Glorantha, Chaosium owns most variations of the RQ games mechanics and no doubt TSR would seek to claim the rest :-) Prehaps Chaosium should come right out and attempt to compete with GURPS by offering an all-singing, all-dancing BRP generic product. This might offer the big prize. Other than that give us a decent, unshackled RQ so Steve gets his royalities and Oliver and his team finally see their work on the shelves. Its enough to make a grown role-player grumble ... Guy Robinson ------------------------------ From: niwe@ppvku.ericsson.se (Nils Weinander) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 95 11:44:21 +0100 Subject: Hit locations & criticals Hit locations - ------------- Guy Robinson: >Do people that that RQ without locations would not be RQ? David Dunham: >Yes, I recall hit locations were one of the things that attracted me to RQ. >HOWEVER, I suspect you could come up with a system where hit locations were >only rolled for Major Wounds. In fact, my memory tells me Elric does just >this. That's the way I run it. I have only tried in two sessions, but it seemed to work well. _____ Criticals - --------- Kevin Rose: >Invariably combining massivly increased damage >with massively reduced protection is not a combination that results in >enjoyable play. Armour coverage should clearly be separated from hit quality. I use double damage for criticals and a separate roll for armour coverage, partial armour covers on 1-12(d20), normal armour 1-16(d20) and improved armour or natural armour on 1-19(d20). /Nils W ------------------------------ From: ns10005@hermes.cam.ac.uk (Nigel Smith) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 10:47:54 +0000 Subject: Re: +5%/MP; Rune Power David Dunham replied to Bruce Mason: >>I've been using for a long time the simple rules >>that you can spend MPs to increase cast chance. Each extra MP gives >>+5%. > >Once again, this is a bad deal unless you're really pressed for time. > >If I am POW 10, I'm 50% to cast, say, Fireblade (a 4-point spell). If I >fail the first time, I lose one point and cast it again, at 50% chance. The >chance of missing both rolls is only 25%, so my chance has increased to 75% >-- +25%. It's true that time to cast is longer -- (DEX SR + 4) * 2 instead >of (DEX SR + 4 + 1?). But I get 20% greater chance of success, and I use at >most 5 MP, same as your system. On average, I use 4.5 MP, and the average >time spent is (DEX SR + 4) * 1.5. Except that you add 3SR if you want to cast another spell in a melee round. Of course, this depends on your definition of another: 1) A second spell (my preference) 2) A different spell (my player's preference) What do others play? ------------------------------ From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> Date: 16 Mar 95 07:15:48 EST Subject: Ton-up RuneQuest >> . I want the RQ rules to cope well with over 100% attacks more because of the various weapon/ skill enhancing magic than my PCs (admittedly some of them are weaponmasters, but the magic is a bigger issue). << That could prove difficult. Many people have tried to sort out RQ at 100%+, and it's never really worked very well (that I've seen). BTW, this business of POW for a rock or a world or a hill doesn't half remind me of the Force. Perhaps POW isn't a measure of a personal reserve at all, but on how much of the ambient magical field one can grasp and control ? - ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Hugh Foster [100326,446] | | | | The reason people blame things on previous generations? | | There's only one other choice! | - ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> Date: 16 Mar 95 07:16:09 EST Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #150 >> Let's not overdo the search for simplified combat: else we can just roll the dice against each other, high one wins: next combat! << Amen! (Sorry Loren, done it again!) >> One thing in our campaigns moving from RQ2 to RQ3 was we never got clear on what was scan and what was search. << Scan is looking for summat you don't know is there, generally longer range. Search is hunting about for something that (may) be there, but you know (sorta) what yer after. - ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Hugh Foster [100326,446] | | | | Never wear anything that panics the cat. | - ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> Date: 16 Mar 95 07:15:42 EST Subject: Hit locations >> Why are we keeping locations if Steve is seeking to simplify things? Do people [think] that that RQ without locations would not be RQ? << Absolutely, 110%. When I first started playing Dweebs and Delvers, it already had a house hitloc system attached. General hit points has always been a boring way of doing things. It's the same as players always wanting to parry; they wanna know which arm they've cut off. "If the right arm's off, the guy can't make a dying blow, can he ?". I have a great aversion to "Healthy, Worried, Wounded, Dead" hit "step" systems. They're too much of a blunt object. I hated them in (Mega)Traveller and I'd hate them in RQ. A bit more diddling about produces much more enjoyment! - ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Hugh Foster [100326,446] | | | | An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. | - ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 04:58:22 PST Subject: Re: Hit locations & criticals Nils Weinander wrote: >David Dunham: >>Yes, I recall hit locations were one of the things that attracted me to RQ. >>HOWEVER, I suspect you could come up with a system where hit locations were >>only rolled for Major Wounds. In fact, my memory tells me Elric does just >>this. >That's the way I run it. I have only tried in two sessions, but it seemed >to work well. This approach sounds good to me as it would retain locations, provide a reasonable Major wound system and insure that locational damage is used for maimings and disembowlent rather than piddly little scratches. After all knowing that 3 to 5 locations are a little battered is not as usefull as knowing whether someone`s arm is out of commission. And in most situations the locational roll would not be needed. On the subject of Criticals I think DB or 6 points, which ever is most, is a reasonable yield for a critical, although the Narrative Critical system described by Bruce Mason would provide an interesting range of options. PowerGame uses this kind of reasoning and this is not that suprising as it is an improvisional super human system. Critical might also cause a Major wound. Guy Robinson ------------------------------ From: Liam_McCauley@qsp.co.uk Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 13:09:36 -0000 Subject: Re: Skill generation revisited Colin, I loved your Big Scary Table (BST) so much I thought I'd take it one logical step further. I wrote a simple program to calculate the final skill %ages using the exact system in the RQIII rules (I think you said that yours approximated the increases). The basic idea, though, is so sensible and obvious, that it's strange that no-one has come up with it before. I really hate the flat progression in the RQIII character generation, although the stuff posted about RQ:AiG looked a lot better. Since I don't have access to anything other than the published rules and anything posted here, I shall experiment with the BST in character generation until RQ4 comes out. Should have plenty of time then. I didn't calculate from 0%, because the rules for that in the errata are not as straight forward (you have to know the skill category modifier for one thing). Simply do this first step by hand. I have set a couple of macros which can be easily changed: FRACTIONAL: if set to 1, then partially completed periods of training will be worth something. BASE, BASE_MAX, BASE_INC: should be obvious. If you set BASE to 1 and BASE_INC to 1, then you can generate training increases for any starting %age. Useful for training up existing characters for long periods. Here's the table I came up with, followed by the source code (in 'c'): With FRACTIONAL=0 -----------Number of months training---------- Base 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 5 29 41 49 57 63 69 75 81 85 89 93 99 10 30 42 50 58 64 70 76 80 86 90 94 98 15 31 43 51 59 65 71 77 81 87 91 95 99 20 34 44 52 60 66 72 78 82 86 92 96 100 25 37 47 55 61 67 73 79 83 89 93 97 101 30 40 50 56 64 70 76 80 86 90 94 98 102 35 45 53 59 67 71 77 83 87 91 95 99 103 40 48 56 62 68 74 80 84 90 94 98 102 106 With FRACTIONAL=1 -----------Number of months training---------- Base 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 5 29 41 50 57 64 70 75 81 85 90 94 99 10 30 42 50 58 64 70 76 81 86 90 95 99 15 32 43 51 59 65 71 77 82 87 91 95 99 20 35 45 53 60 67 72 78 83 87 92 96 100 25 38 47 55 62 68 74 79 84 89 93 97 101 30 41 50 57 64 70 76 81 86 90 95 99 103 35 45 53 60 67 72 78 83 87 92 96 100 104 40 49 56 63 69 75 80 85 90 94 98 102 106 - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- #define FRACTIONAL 0 #define BASE 5 #define BASE_MAX 40 #define BASE_INC 5 main() { int base, time, hours, skill, t, left, increase; float fract; increase = 2; printf( " -----------Number of months training----------\n" ); printf( "Base 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12\n" ); for ( base = BASE; base <= BASE_MAX; base += BASE_INC ) { printf( "%3d", base ); for ( time = 1; time <= 12; time++ ) { skill = base; hours = time * 200; for ( t=0; (t+skill) <= hours; t += skill, skill += increase ) ; if ( FRACTIONAL ) { left = hours - t; if ( left >= 0 ) { fract = (float)left / (float)skill; skill += fract * increase; } } printf( " %3d", skill ); } printf( "\n" ); } } - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: brandon@caldonia.nlm.nih.gov (Brandon Brylawski) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 09:04:50 -0500 Subject: Re: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #150 With regards to parrying dragging combats out: I found that the Brandonquest rules seem to work very well for making combats a reasonable length, even with highly skilled combatants. To summarize the rules : Each level of success in parry or dodge reduces the level of the corresponding attack by one. For example, a normal parry stops a normal attack, reduces a special attack to a normal attack, and a critical to a special. Special attacks (after any reduction for defense) do double rolled weapon damage, as per RQ:AIG, with impaling weapons getting an additional +2. Critical attacks do damage as specials, plus can either hit a location of choice or ignore armor. Note that there are no weapon or shield APs in this system! I never liked weapon APs, because in reality parries stop blows cleanly, or fail; only a tiny fraction of blows are blunted by a parry. Shields in Brandonquest get a bonus to parry because of their size, and can be used to parry missiles. Dodging works against anything and doesn't require a weapon, but is a harder skill than parrying. If defending against multiple attacks, each parry is -10% * (number of attacks). If an attack is deemed by the GM to be overwhelmingly powerful and thus difficult to parry, I assign a negative parry modifier. For example, a Great Troll maul might be -20%, a Dream Dragon claw -100%. This system has worked well, and speeds up combat a lot, because one never rolls damage or location with normal attacks versus normal parries; they just bounce. - -------------------- With regards to attacking skills over 100%, I strongly disagree with systems that allow splitting, for the following reasons. 1. If you cannot split unless you have a certain skill (say 100%) then you get terrible thresholding effects. Picture a fighter with 100% A 100% P versus one with 95% A 95% P. If you get only one parry, then the fighter with the 100% will hit half the time, while his opponent only hits on an autofailed parry! Ridiculous. 2. If there is no threshold where you can split, you still run into strange occurrences. Two fighters with 50% Attack and parry have a 25% chance to hit one another in a given round; two fighters with 100% A & P, splitting attacks and parries, have about a 43% chance to hit one another in the same round. Also silly: better fighters hit one another _less_ often, not more. In Brandonquest, Attack and defense skills over 90% are rolled as if 90%; the excess reduces the opposing skill instead. (If the opponent is not defending, use the full skill for specials and criticals). This has worked fine in my campaigns too. Brandon ------------------------------ From: Colin Watson Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 14:20:05 GMT Subject: Re: RQ4 character generation teaser ____________ Loren Miller : > Originally each "character point" was equivalent to some constant > number of hours of training under the RQ3 rules. It was originally > 100 hours, I'm not sure what it is any more. From the example you gave it looks like each point is equivalent to about 400 or 500 hours for low to mid-level skills. For the higher level skills you're actually getting significantly less for your points: more like 250 hours per point for a 90% skill. > Thus the factoid that > each additional 15% of skill doubled the training time was a > discovery about the current RQ3 rules (with a bit of smoothing > applied), not an invention for RQ4. A bit of smoothing?!? Ok, this is how sad I am: I wrote a little C program to generate some figures... By my calculation, if you use the RQ3 method of training (where you gain 2% if you spend a number of hours equal to your current skill), starting a skill from 0% the results are as follows: you reach 16% in 56 hours 30% in 210 hours 46% in 506 hours 60% in 870 hours 76% in 1406 hours and 90% in 1980 hours Thus the factoid that each additional 15% of skill doubles the training time is wildly inaccurate. The graph should look parabolic, not exponential. In summary, the recently presented RQ4 system overcharges for high skills. (Ironic, seeing as how the old RQ3 linear starting-skill system undercharged for high skills.) > > how does it reflect the differing base chances when > > generating starting skills? > > It doesn't. But as is pretty obvious, the cost of low skills is so > low that the savings is probably not worth the trouble (except to > fanatic minimaxers). What I meant was: a skill starting at 0% takes significantly longer to reach 90% than a skill starting at 25%. In the same amount of time that a 0% skill reaches 90%; the 25% skill should reach about 94%. Now, you might all shout "Who cares about this piddling difference!". But the fact is, for near-100% skills 4% is NOT a piddling difference. That 4% means you fail nearly TWICE as often. Why round all the starting skills to neat little 5% increments? RQ is based on a percentage system so we should use a granularity of 1% not 5%. Else we might as well develop a d20 system like Pendragon or a d10 system like Ars Magica. (Look, I know this statistical stuff is boring; but nobody said designing good rules was fun all the way. A little boring statistics in the design can make for a better game to play.) ___ CW. ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #151 ******************************* 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.