From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V2 #180 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, 8 February 1996 Volume 02 : Number 180 TABLE OF CONTENTS Steve Lieb Sky-High Percentages SPerrin@aol.com Realism at higher levels ANDOVER@delphi.com Realism at higher levels David Cake Realism at higher levels hasni@big10.metrobbs.com RQ Rules Digest: V2 #178 Bernuetz, Oliver: WPG High Level Skills ANDOVER@delphi.com High Level Skills JOSE RAMOS 1H, 2H and Conan Bernuetz, Oliver: WPG High Level Skills Brian Tickler Attacks and Parries Jason D. Hendricks Skill levels in respect to age ANDOVER@delphi.com Skill levels in respect to age Philip Hibbs Sky-High Percentages Philip Hibbs Skill levels in respect to age Jason D. Hendricks Skill levels in respect to age Steve Lieb Sky-High Percentages RULES OF THE ROAD 1. Do not include large sections of a message in your reply. Especially not to add "Yeah, I agree" or "No, I disagree." Or be excoriated. If someone writes something good and you want to say "good show" please do. But don't include the whole message you praise. 2. Use an appropriate Subject line. 3. Learn the art of paraphrasing: Don't just quote and comment on a point-by-point basis. When paraphrasing you demonstrate exactly how well you understand the point someone was trying to make. 4. There is no number 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: liebx004@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Steve Lieb) Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 22:39:34 -0600 Subject: Re: Sky-High Percentages >In defence of those using 'high level combat': > >150%+ skills aren't impossible to achieve, nor are 200% skills. Nor do they >require a D&D or Monty Haul style of play. Or an Aldryami with a few dozen gaming sessions under her belt, DEX trained to 21, STR 16, with an elf bow using arrow trance. Gurta Snowbalsam (her human name) was shooting at something like 240%. Steve Lieb (liebx004@maroon.tc.umn.edu) (Who continues to suffer from .sig bloat - and therefore has clipped the whole thing. Wait . . .) ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 01:46:31 -0500 Subject: Re: Realism at higher levels Martin Laurie opined: >>Personally I have no difficulty in handling tough characters. It seems to me that the main objection from many GMs is that the PCs are now untouchable by trollkin or the local militia. This is exactly as it should be. Why be a Rune Level if any part time warrior can push you around? << Just thought I should mention here that Rurik, the original Rune Lord, was killed by a critical hit from a trollkin... Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: ANDOVER@delphi.com Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 03:04:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Realism at higher levels And in the real world, Pyrrhus of Epirus was killed by a stone cast by an old woman, and Richard the Lion Hearted by an arrow thrown by an old man; oth in insignificant affrays. I would guess, in game terms, Stonewall Jackson was killed by a fumble, i.e., accidentally shot by his own men. Did that make any of them less of a hero? By the way, I am not against high-level play; my question was how people took starting characters to high levels At such a fast rate. On the few ocasions when we have wanted high-level players, we have taken npcs from printed sources and turned them into pcs. Jim Chapin ------------------------------ From: David Cake Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 16:29:26 +0800 Subject: Re: Realism at higher levels >By the way, I am not against high-level play; my question was how people >took starting characters to high levels At such a fast rate. On the few >ocasions when we have wanted high-level players, we have taken npcs from >printed sources and turned them into pcs. Which points out one of the more subtle problems with RQ2 and RQ3 - if you want a high powered NPC, you really just have to make it up, there are few guidelines. Obviously major NPCs will be created, but there are times when you want a tough NPC and don't want to have to think about it. And the solution to the problem? RQ4 character creation works really well in this kind of situation. In RQ3 I used to use some weird mix of years of experience, or just a bunch of percentiles, but it was far too much arithmetic to do in any sane way. Cheers David Computing Officer |"Our machines are disturbingly lively, Arts Faculty UWA |and we ourselves frighteningly inert." davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au | -Donna Haraway >Microsoft, meanwhile, denies that the problem exists. ------------------------------ From: hasni@big10.metrobbs.com Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 01:57:00 -0500 Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V2 #178 IR>>Agreed but I allow characters to roll whenever there is a convenient moment IR>>that can take a while. Personally I'd like to see some sort of rule for IR>>including skill checks for failures as we all learn by our mistakes, often IR>>more than our sucesses. In the past, we've played that if you fumble, you get check. Makes sense, in a sick kinda way..... "Oh, I shouldn't impale myself in the head with my dagger, hmm...I'll try and remember that in the future..." Hasni Mubarak - --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ And sometimes the bear eats you. ------------------------------ From: bernuetz.oliver@ic.gc.ca (Bernuetz, Oliver: WPG) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 10:23:11 -0500 Subject: Re: High Level Skills I'm running a Gloranthan campaign using the basic rules except that I allow players to roll an extra die when rolling up each stat and then drop the worst one. This has resulted in some pretty good, but not gross characters (for the most part not counting the Yemalio farmer whose lowest skill was 13 but he was only 18 when the campaign started so he was pretty inexperienced). The usual stats range is still around 13-15 with the old 8 still around. Anyway I usually require characters to rest for a week before rolling on their checks and the campaign has been going on for about 3 years or so with continual breaks for offspring and people not having time. One of the characters has a 105% to hit with his 2h sword and another is approaching 100% with her poleax so it is possible with weapons. It strikes me that it's a lot less possible with other categories like agility skills, knowledge, and especially stealth. The very characteristics that make you a doughty fighter or spell user doom you to being a lousy sneak. I can see that within the year a few characters will make rune level. The Babeester Gor only needs a 1000 pennies and some more power checks to make it, though those two Wahas despair of ever getting butchery to 90%. Going back to the thrown weapons business I've changed the damages done by knives, axes and javelins to give them a bit more oomph. The damages I'm using now are: Javelin 1d12 Hand Axe 1d10 Knife 1d8 What do you think? Oliver D. Bernuetz bernuetz.oliver@ic.gc.ca ------------------------------ From: ANDOVER@delphi.com Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 11:19:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: High Level Skills I don't understand why Oliver's characters have a problem with getting butchery to 90%. That is about the only skill that my primitive/barbarian characters get a check in EVERY week . . . :) ------------------------------ From: ramos@crpp.u-bordeaux.fr (JOSE RAMOS) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 16:46:16 GMT Subject: 1H, 2H and Conan Concerning the recent discussion regarding one handed use of two handed weapons, I want to propose the system we used. A weapon is made for a concrete damage bonus. If you are much stronger than the intended user, you cannot profit of all your strength. If you are much weaker, you cannot use the weapon at all (at least as intended). If your scimitar is made for a 1D4 DB, people with a bonus of 0 and 1D6 can use it without penalty. If you have a DB of 2D6 (magically enhanced perhaps), you can only use 1D6 (3D6,4D6=2D6;5D6,6D6=3D6, etc). If you have a DB of -1D4 you cannot use it (unless you can grab it two handed). The point is that in this way you personalize more your weapons, and can have Conan have his broadsword (1D8+1+2D6) that a lesser man would call a bastard sword (and make bastard sword damage, 1D10+1+1D4). I think that to use your strength more effectively you need a bigger/heavier weapon. It forces to make many individual rulings (Is the troll's mace usable one handed?), but as almost all human weapons are in the 1D4 range, it is less frequent that it seems. This way a strong, big character will use the bigger sword he can handle one handed, and it will be a bastard sword, even if it is as big as the two handed sword of his companion (it will have as many AP, and will be also expensive). Only when you are noticeably larger than human (we use SIZ 28-30) is your weapons damage enhanced, and not much. We find the damage bonus lethal without increasing also weapon damage. The increased GM work is offset by some roleplaying and comic relief. Think in the problems of finding a smith in Prax to make your Storm Bull a real sword and not a wimp's one. Or the magic sword you can use only under the influence of a Strength spell. This was the solution I found when our resident Storm Buller (STR17, SIZ17) wished to use a Great Axe one handed. Instead of increasing damage, the player's Battle Axe became a hatchet and the Great Axe a Battle one (he threw the "hatchet", but it was affected in the same way). I hope this is helpful and not too incomprehensible, but I lack editing capabilities at the moment, and I am not too sure of what I have writte. Comments welcome. > o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o Centre de Recherche Paul Pascal o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o > o Jose Ramos Net: Ramos@crpp.u-bordeaux.fr o > o CRPP, CNRS-Universite de Bordeaux-I Tel: +33 56.84.56.11 o > o Avenue A. Schweitzer, F_33600 France Fax: +33 56.84.56.00 o > o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o ------------------------------ From: bernuetz.oliver@ic.gc.ca (Bernuetz, Oliver: WPG) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 12:15:30 -0500 Subject: Re: High Level Skills Too much trail rations I guess and a party impatient to get where they're going to hunt.;-> Oliver D. Bernuetz ---------- From: RQ-Rules To: RQ-Rules Subject: Re: High Level Skills Date: Thursday, February 08, 1996 11:19AM I don't understand why Oliver's characters have a problem with getting butchery to 90%. That is about the only skill that my primitive/barbarian characters get a check in EVERY week . . . :) ------------------------------ From: tickler@netcom.com (Brian Tickler) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 09:34:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Attacks and Parries > From: ANDOVER@delphi.com > Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 20:38:09 -0500 (EST) > Subject: Re: Attacks & Parries > > Err, Brian, if anything is developing in any one's mind, it is yours. I > was in fact referring to an impassioned discussion a while back. Jim Chapin Yes, I remember it...it was about 6-8 months ago, I would guess. Bravo, Jim...I see your E-Mail sleight-of-intentions skill is clearly over 100%. You should make Rune Lord in no time... - -- Brian T. Tickler E-Mail: tickler@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: jahendricks@vassar.edu (Jason D. Hendricks) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 13:23:42 -0500 Subject: Skill levels in respect to age In a recent session it came up that I needed to generate stats for a PC's father. The PC was a Hunter, presumably having been taught by his father. The PC started out with 10 years experience...and increased greatly from that. The problem though, is generating his father's stats. Using the RQ3 rules, his father should have skills far in excess of 100% in certain areas. Bow skill with a x5 multiplier combined with 30 years as a hunter gives him a whopping skill base. It wasn't that big of a deal...though his father took out the troll leader with a critical shot in the second round of combat ;-) My question is: do other GM's allow skills in excess of 100 due to age experience? If this is true, and skills improve at a continuous rate, and 95% in a skill is considered "master", then every goatherd is likely to be "master" of a few weapons, as opposed to merely competent. Any suggestions? - --Jason-- ------------------------------ From: ANDOVER@delphi.com Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 14:58:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Skill levels in respect to age What about aging rules? ------------------------------ From: Philip Hibbs <101621.1264@compuserve.com> Date: 08 Feb 96 16:16:50 EST Subject: Re: Sky-High Percentages > an Aldryami with a few dozen gaming sessions under her belt, DEX trained to 21, DEX TRAINED TO 21? My Humakti would kill for a con greater than 9! Where do you find the time? +------------+------------------------------------------------------------+ | Phil Hibbs | What immortal hand or eye dare frame thy fearful symmetry? | +------------+------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ From: Philip Hibbs <101621.1264@compuserve.com> Date: 08 Feb 96 16:16:41 EST Subject: Skill levels in respect to age >do other GM's allow skills in excess of 100 due to age >experience? Looking for a reason not to? Quick XP won't allow skills over 75% for this very reason. +------------+------------------------------------------------------------+ | Phil Hibbs | What immortal hand or eye dare frame thy fearful symmetry? | +------------+------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ From: jahendricks@vassar.edu (Jason D. Hendricks) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 18:10:36 -0500 Subject: Re: Skill levels in respect to age >>do other GM's allow skills in excess of 100 due to age >>experience? > >Looking for a reason not to? Quick XP won't allow skills over 75% for this very >reason. Well, yes actually. Consider the fact that every NPC around age 40-45 will have the skills of a master (at least) in his chosen field. That seems silly to me. Joe the generic town guard has a skill in excess of 100% without having had any "special" training from a true master? I try to limit max %'s for NPC's to 75 unless they have either acquired special training, or are under special circumstances. This limits the amount of experts in a particular area - and makes PCs and NPCs with skills above 100% truly rare and impressive. ------------------------------ From: liebx004@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Steve Lieb) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 22:27:41 -0600 Subject: Re: Sky-High Percentages >> an Aldryami with a few dozen gaming sessions under her belt, DEX trained to >21, > >DEX TRAINED TO 21? My Humakti would kill for a con greater than 9! >Where do you find the time? > > If it makes you feel better my Humakti had a rolled POW of 8, and got a successful DI (him & 3 unconscious characters against 5 scorpion men) by rolling a 07. AAAAGH. POW 1. Nice. Ever try going into a decent combat with a POW of ONE? Any butthead trollkin with Befuddle screws with ya. And spirits? EEEK! Steve Lieb (liebx004@maroon.tc.umn.edu) (Who continues to suffer from .sig bloat - and therefore has clipped the whole thing. Wait . . .) ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V2 #180 ******************************* 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. WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html