From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #155 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Friday, 17 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 155 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 Tim Leask Critical Hits David Cake Critical Hits BRIAN ADRIAN JACKSON RQ Classes Nigel Smith Hit locations & criticals Nigel Smith Criticals; power levels mdouglas_at_AIGWHQ@mailhost. Re[2]: Critical Hits Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. Absent for a week GAWINTER@aol.com Loren's Skill generation sys ANDOVER@delphi.com Critical Hits Colin Watson Piddly or not. Colin Watson RQ4 character generation teaser SPerrin@aol.com Ton(?)-up RuneQuest SPerrin@aol.com Criticals; power levels ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Leask Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 17:36:03 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: Critical Hits David Cake writes: > > Subject: Re: Criticals, don't like 'em, no sir. > > >Regarding criticals, I'd rather see less not more. > > > >Criticals don't add much except the unwarranted death of a PC every > >now and then. The outcome of a story hardly ever hinges on the fact that > >the PCs must roll a crit (and it'd be a poor story if it did). > > > >IMO RQ combat is dangerous enough without increasing the chance of > >Random Death through crits. > > Criticals, however, help game realism a great deal, IMHO. Criticals > mean that my players who are wearing lots of armour are still not keen on > getting into fights. It means people can be killed in one blow. > I like them. > Cheers > Dave > >___ > >CW. I'm with CW on this one. In fact,if you think about it,the more powerful you get the more likely you are to suffer an instant death. This is because as a player's skill increase in ability so too do the NPC's or critters you encounter. Thus the chances of being critically hit thus increases. Criticals and specials are generally what kill characters. Normal hits are more likely to just wittle away a character to unconsciousness. Once unconscious the fate of the party determines your fate - you still may die but if you do it will be the result of many events - not a single unlucky die roll. IMHO if we are talking "realism" then surely the more skilled you get the more survivable you become. This is rarely the case in RQ. I would be happy with a system that maintained the likelihood of death at a relatively constant level but one in which the chance of death increases as you progress is, to me, broken. Cheers, Tim ================================================================================ Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Anyone can hold the helm when University of Melbourne < \ the sea is calm." Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ -- Publilius Syrus Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au ================================================================================ ------------------------------ From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 14:59:59 +0800 Subject: Re: Critical Hits >I'm with CW on this one. >In fact,if you think about it,the more powerful you get the more likely >you are to suffer an instant death. This is because as a player's >skill increase in ability so too do the NPC's or critters you encounter. >Thus the chances of being critically hit thus increases. >Criticals and specials are generally what kill characters. >Normal hits are more likely to just wittle away a character to >unconsciousness. Once unconscious the fate of the party determines your >fate - you still may die but if you do it will be the result of >many events - not a single unlucky die roll. > I find that once a party gets reasonably powerful, they have access to a decent amount of healing, and perhaps the occasional Resurrect or DI. Generally a party will cope with a serious wound from a lucky hit, even if the character goes down. What kills characters (and what has killed all the PCs who have so far died in mine) is getting into a very bad situation without an escape, or doing something very stupid. Criticals take PCs down, but seldom kill them. Actually, from my current game the most dangerous thing so far is probably drowning - 1 killed so far, another near death. And Tim, I am afraid your reasoning is flawed anyway - you can parry criticals, and generally reduces them to a reasonable level. What it means to me is that my well armoured PCs are not invulnerable, and no fight is a certain push over. Suggestions for other ways to keep them ware are welcome! Cheers Dave >Cheers, >Tim >=========================================================================== >===== >Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Anyone can hold the helm when >University of Melbourne < \ the sea is calm." >Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ -- Publilius Syrus >Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- >e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au >=========================================================================== >===== ------------------------------ From: BRIAN ADRIAN JACKSON Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 09:02:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: RQ Classes On Fri, 10 Mar 1995, Colin Watson wrote: > > Who thought RQ didn't have character classes? > > > > > Not me, but I call the character classes "cults". > [ Stuff about unrealistic limits deleted ] > It all smacks of Fighters, Magic Users and Clerics. > > ___ > CW. > I ignored them, if a sorcerer spends time training in his more physical skills he's not going to learn much about casting spells (the limits are aready there). In the case of preists, they will probally get thrown out if they spend to much time learning 'inappropiate' skills instead of performing cult duties. And similary for shamans, although in this case it's more likely to be a linching from their tribe. Brian Jackson My language is my own, and any resemblance to other languages is a mere coincidence. ------------------------------ From: ns10005@hermes.cam.ac.uk (Nigel Smith) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 09:28:58 +0000 Subject: Re: Hit locations & criticals Nils W: >Armour coverage should clearly be separated from hit quality. Why? I thought that one of the 'justifications' of a crit. hit system was to allow for that blow that hit the join in the plate mail, the eye rather than the helm, or the soft-skinned 'armpit' of the boar. Nigel ------------------------------ From: ns10005@hermes.cam.ac.uk (Nigel Smith) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 09:28:54 +0000 Subject: Re: Criticals; power levels Steve Perrin: >At RuneQuest Con 2, Ray Turney and I were discussing the situation and one >idea was to use an old idea and allow multiple attacks at fractions of the >weapon skill, with the target only being able to make one parry/dodge unless >that ability was also over 100% or the attacks are against more than one >opponent. This simulates the really good fakes and feints that a master class >fighter can use--or so goes the rationale. Which would mean changing the Dodge skill again, since at the moment you can attempt to Dodge all the attacks of one 'opponent' (see Signy vs. the lion). Split attacks could go against multiple opponents, but what is wrong with the % over 100% being subtracted from the defender's Dodge or Parry skill? Simulates the faking etc. with less rolling (and no arguements about SR/attack timings!). Nigel ------------------------------ From: mdouglas_at_AIGWHQ@mailhost.aig.com Date: Fri, 17 Mar 95 08:20:09 cst Subject: Re[2]: Critical Hits IMHO if we are talking "realism" then surely the more skilled you get the more survivable you become. This is rarely the case in RQ. ---------------------------- This is only the case if the increase in obstacles outweighs the increase in skills. ------------------------------ From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 07:34:53 PST Subject: Absent for a week I'm off on a training course. I'll resubscribe when I return. This post is merely being sent to explain my absence. Regards -- Guy Robinson -- ------------------------------ From: GAWINTER@aol.com Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 12:59:30 -0500 Subject: Re: Loren's Skill generation sys I guess it has the advantage of being a straight table to generate starting skills -- which is good. But I makes everything dependent on Stats (which I don't like). Not only does Joe the Lucky roller, get a great character, he also gets much better skills. Could you clarify how this removes the problem of "piddly" differences in the skill modifiers. In theory I would love to see a simplified skill system, but personally I use a spreadsheet, which means that despite the hideous complexity of the system, I am no longer effected by this, I just happily plug in my numbers and the character breezes along. (Never mind the 4 hours it took to create/modify the spreadsheet) ------------------------------ From: ANDOVER@delphi.com Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 13:38:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Critical Hits There seems to be some confusion here. As you get better, you are more likely to be slain by a critical hit as a percentage of your chance of getting slain, but not in absolute terms! If you are getting better and therefore facing tougher opponents, that's the nature of the game. After all, your character could stay on his farm and fight raiding trollkin, if he wants to be safe! But if he goes on the Cradle or fights ZZ Rune Lords, why should he expect his chance of survival to be BETTER than when he was fighting a couple of marauding broos! Criticals are fine by me, though I think fumbles are still too ------------------------------ From: Colin Watson Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 18:54:16 GMT Subject: Piddly or not. ____________ Loren Miller: > Instead of more complaining submit your parabolic (not exponential) > counter-proposal in tabular form. Ok, the pre-RQAIG draft had the following skill percentages with corresponding cost in "character points": BASIC SKILLS Base (Pts.) Base (Pts.) Base (Pts.) Base (Pts.) Primary Attack 45% 1 60% 2 75% 4 90% 8 I'd make it more like: Base (Pts.) Base (Pts.) Base (Pts.) Base (Pts.) Base (Pts.) 35% 1/2 45% 1 60% 2 83% 4 100% 6 or 35% 1/2 45% 1 60% 2 72% 3 92% 5 Round to the nearest 5% if you dare. The figures are derived from Liam McCauley's table taking a 20% base skill and making 1 "character point" = 2 months training. > As I said before "except to fanatic minimaxers." You're missing the point. If you design rules with built-in loopholes because you think the loopholes don't matter "except to fanatic minimaxers" then the fanatic minimaxers are going to *take the game apart*. Do you want RQ to be a good game for minimaxers? Thinking like a minimaxer when you *design* a game is a Good Thing. It prevents people from minimaxing when they *play* the game. If the rules are balanced then there should be no scope for minimaxing. All character genertion options should be equal. > IMO 4% is a piddling difference no matter where it falls. If I have a parry% of 95% and you have a parry% of 91% it's nearly twice as likely that you'll fail your parry first and be horribly chopped. Is this not significant? Or, we're in a boat that's sprung a leak. I have a 5% ability in Form/Set Wood. You have a 9% ability in Form/Set Wood. We've used nearly all our MPs trying to fix the leak. Fortunately we have a crystal containing 10MPs. Who should get to use the crystal? See the point? +4% is a piddly difference if you have 50% or thereabouts. Hell, +10% doesn't make much difference when you're languishing in mid-table obscurity. But if you're close to 0% or close to 100% then small modifiers make a huge difference. Look, I'm all for getting rid of tricky modifiers which have to be added or subtracted in the heat of the play. But when it comes to character generation why we shouldn't we try to be as accurate (=fair) as possible? > You can use all the > numbers that aren't divisible by 5 for your PCs after character > creation is over, but GMs don't need the extra work. I suggest you let players generate their own PCs if you want to save GM time. You don't have to use the PC character generation rules when generating NPCs. PCs just have to be equal (=fair) when compared to each other; not necessarily when compared to NPCs. > Hell, as someone who usually GMs and barely ever gets to play I'd be Ah, now I understand. ;-) ___ CW. ------------------------------ From: Colin Watson Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 20:00:20 GMT Subject: Re: RQ4 character generation teaser _____________ Malcolm Cohen replies: > > Thus the factoid that each additional 15% of skill doubles the training > > time is wildly inaccurate. > > Actually, it is accurate enough to use in the "normal" skill range. It's ok from about 45% to 60%, yes. The RQ3 character generation system was "ok" under certain conditions too. It would be nice to have something that works in all weathers though. > Thus although the RQ4 system is not suitable for catchup play, it is > eminently suitable for chargen. If you only take skills of 45% or 60% and don't care what the basic% is it works. Do we want to settle for Good Enough? ___ CW. ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 15:31:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Ton(?)-up RuneQuest Hugh Foster realizes: >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 ?< Well, actually Hugh, I think it's both. The size of your personal reserve tells you how much of the ambient magical field you can grasp and control. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 15:30:55 -0500 Subject: Re: Criticals; power levels Nigel Smith asks: > but what is wrong with the % over 100% being subtracted from the defender's Dodge or Parry skill? Simulates the faking etc. with less rolling (and no arguements about SR/attack timings!).< What is "wrong," (and it isn't necessarily wrong) is that the players have to take the time to subtract the numbers. ATTACKER: "I have 134% with broadsword. I roll 79, a hit." DEFENDER: "I have a parry of 77%. I roll 52--parried!" ATTACKER: "Yeah, but you have to subtract the 34% from the 77%." DEFENDER: "Ooops, let's see, that's