From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #20 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 020 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 RQR: Realism and Wounds RQR: Re: modifiers; SCA Re: RQR: Re: Spirit Combat RQR: Macro/micro skills, Wounds, Realism Re: RQR: Re: Spirit Combat Re: RQR: Re: Spirit Combat RQR: Mounted Combat Re: RQR: Realism in RQ combat, other matters... RQR: Re: Non-RQ Glorantha RQR: RQR Target test ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme A Lindsell Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 17:13:47 +1100 (EST) Subject: RQR: Realism and Wounds Brent Krupp writes: >I'd like to be the first to second Graeme's excellent and (IMHO) spot-on >remarks. Why, thankyou! (The money should reach you in a couple of days :-)) >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" That's true, but I think most people are more interested in the actual combat rather than the wounds they dish out or take. One problem with trying to make a more complex wound system in RQ is that there are a lot of distinctly non-human creatures in the game, which might need markedly different rules. As it stands, the rq damage system is more detailed than many others. My problem is more with the speed of magical healing rather than the wound system itself - while magic doesn't have to accept any standards of realism the easy healing gives PCs a very cavalier attitude to damage. But this is another argument that's had lot's of time on the RQ4 list. (Speaking of the old arguments, has anyone done more playtesting of the "Healsharp" and "Dispel Damage" variants of Heal?) - -- Graeme Lindsell a.k.a Graeme.Lindsell@anu.edu.au Research School of Chemistry, Australian National University ------------------------------ From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 23:43:56 -0800 Subject: RQR: Re: modifiers; SCA Daniel Tartaglia said: >My idea was to let the attacker choose a modifier to his attack roll (after >all other mods are taken into account,) if the attack hits, the defender >must parry with the same mod. This would allow players to hit a downed >character 100% of the time even if they only have a 5% attack chance... While this takes care of the special case of the automatic hit of someone who's down, how does giving yourself +50% to attack and giving your opponent +50% to defend help the game in any way? My proposal simulates moves like a fencing lunge -- it makes it easier to hit your opponent, at the expense of, if you miss, you're in a position where you can't defend and are very vulnerable. Nicholas Marcelja reminds us of SCA rules: >no hits to the knee or below. ( the knee is fragile and >it is too easy to strike at the ankle) This is exactly why I believe that SCA fighting is as valid as any other martial art: not very. Didn't someone just post that most Viking combat burials had left ankle wounds? SCA fighting is thus unrealistic by design. This is not to say that there are some valid things one can learn from SCA, e.g. your example that armor is fatiguing (I'm told that helmets are especially fatiguing, which is why there's a rule in AiG about that). ------------------------------ From: Jon Green Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 04:45:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: RQR: Re: Spirit Combat In a possible past, Keith Ivey said: > > On Wed, 16 Nov 1994, Jon Green wrote: > > > 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? > Grovelling apologies - I had my wrong head on that day! > 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)? Point conceded, entirely. I asked why the resistance system was so flawed (probably having joined after the sujbect was first raised), and there's my answer. IMO, the resistance table works well enough for conventional stats (3:21 range), but it does fail when things get larger. Another way of dealing with _that_ situation, which is well within the capabilities of mental arithmetic (or a quick scribbled sum), might be this: if one stat. is over 25, take the larger of the two and find the largest divisor which will put it under 21. (In other words, divide by 20 and round up; easy stuff). Divide both stats by that number (dropping the fraction), and use the normal resistance rules. (E.G. 42 vs. 37 becomes 14 vs. 12). It's not wonderful maths, but it's easy do do in your head, and doesn't stop you in the middle of a battle in order to fish out the caluculator (which rather disrupts the flow and feel of a fight). Jon - -- jonsg@hyphen.com Jon@sundome.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ From: Liam_McCauley@qsp.co.uk (Liam McCauley) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 15:02:11 +0000 Subject: RQR: Macro/micro skills, Wounds, Realism Macro / Micro skills -------------------- I agree with Graeme Lindsell's remarks that RQ skills range from the very specific to the very wide scoped, and that this is a problem. Graeme suggests two approaches to fixing this: breaking up macro skills into many micro skills, or wrapping up micro skills into a smaller number of macro skills. I play Millennium's End, which has a % based system which combines macro & micro skills together in quite a reasonable way (IMHO). Each general skill (macro) can contain a number of subskills (micro). So, for example, the Stealth macro skill would include Hide and Sneak micro skills. To sneak across a room, you would add your Sneak + Stealth + Characteristic bonus to get a % figure. This allows characters to be generally stealthy by putting experience into Stealth, and also allows someone to be able to sneak without necessarily having a large chance to hide by putting more experience into Hide skill. Micro skills are (arbitrarily) limited to half the score of the macro skill. This means that, at most, a micro skill will count for 1/3 of the total (ignoring characteristic bonuses for the time being), and the macro component will count for at least 2/3. Skill score increase costs more experience as the score gets higher, making buying extra points in a low-score micro skill cheaper than in a high score macro skill. If anyone is interested, I could post more on this subject. Wounds/Recovery --------------- Brent Krupp says that the RQ wound/damage/recovery rules are not very realistic. Fortunately, my aikido has not yet given me any experience in this area. Millennium's End claims to have a realistic wounding and damage system, although I have found it to be on the limit of complexity that I can handle whilst running a game (in fact, I tend to wing the damage for NPCs a bit - who cares if some punk will lose a pint of blood in 37 or 47 minutes, as long as he's out of the fight!). Does anyone with experience, or knowledge, in this area want to discuss the subject? I like the way that in Ars Magica, wounds can give you permanent Decrepitude Points, which increases your chance of dying when Winter comes around - I don't know if it's realistic, but it has the right feel for me: "Poor Giles, he was never the same after that nasty cut to his leg". Realism in general ------------------ This brings me onto the points made by Graeme Lindsell and Brent Krupp about the realism level being set to that required. Once again, I agree. In Toon, characters that run off a cliff only fall when they look down - this is the level of realism required to model the cartoon genre. In Star Wars, characters can blast several stormtroopers whilst dodging the return fire (and keeping their hairstyle in place), because that's what happened in the films. I think that the current RQ rules lean towards the more realistic level, although (usual disclaimer) the rule books are just guidelines and anyone can play at whatever level they damn well please. I think that the rule book should provide a base level which reflects the author's view, and maybe some optional rules to up- or down-grade the complexity. I think Call of Cthulhu & Elric! do this quite well with the Spot Rules. Too many combat skills? ----------------------- Graeme asks if those with combat/martial arts experience think that there are too many combat skills. Maybe (very guarded :-)). I can think of Dodge, Martial Arts, all weapon attacks and parries. If you consider that all attacks and parries work the same way, then there aren't too many skills (IMO). If you count all the attack and parry skills separately (since, potentially, a character could develop scores in each of them - one of my characters who uses a 2h bastard sword also has skill in 1h parry and attack, both left and right handed in case he loses use of one arm) then there are too many (again IMO). I think that Jon Green came up with a good suggestion of one macro skill covering general fighting ability (awareness, posture and balance, and all the components that cross over all styles of fighting) with micro skills for each separate weapon. This would mean that Rune Lords who lose their sword and have to pick up an axe that they've never used before don't get despatched by the local militia. In the RQ group I play with, combat tends to feature reasonably regularly (probably because we migrated from DnD many moons ago, and old habits die hard, etc.), so we tweak the rules to get the level of realism we want. On the other hand, I consider Over The Edge to be one of the finest sets of rules written, and it must have one of the simplest combat systems (any time you say "I swing at it", or similar, you are penalised in your chance to hit; simply because the author has played for so long that he is sick of the same calls during combat!). I vaguely seem to remember mention of someone running OTE Glorantha. Summary (and about time too!) ------- OK, what am I waffling on about? To summarise: I would like RQ to have a base set of rules that are medium in complexity (although my opinion of 'medium' is probably different from everybody else's :-)) with an elegant and logical system which produces results which feel right (given the tone set by the author). I would also like to discuss how to make certain areas "more realistic" without radically changing the rest of the rules so that I can implement the parts that suit me and my group. Finally, when push comes to shove, I side with the MGF camp. Cheers, Liam McCauley Liam_McCauley@qsp.co.uk ------------------------------ From: apardon@vub.ac.be (Antoon Pardon) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 16:35:44 +0100 (MET) Subject: Re: RQR: Re: Spirit Combat Keith wrote: > 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? Although I don't agree with the actual numbers. I do think your table will need to be bigger. The original table gets by with a 21x21 matrix because when the difference between the opposing numbers is within this range you subtract from both numbers until they fall within this range. If the difference is too big it doesn't matter. With your system If I have a 23 against 17 there is no element within the matrix I could easily transform too. > > > 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. That's because you view the numbers as a linear scale. If you view the number on a logarithmic scale the current rule is more consistent tham yours. [ cut ] - -- ======================================================================== Antoon Pardon Brussels Free University Computing Centre 02/650.37.16 ======================================================================== ------------------------------ From: Loren Miller Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 10:57:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: RQR: Re: Spirit Combat Keith Ivey replying to Jon Green > > 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 I can't speak for Jon, but as for me I do think so. I think that the characteristics in RQ are implicitly exponential, as the SIZ and STR stats are explicitly exponential, and on an exponential scale any two differences of 10 are equivalent. As for the usual argument against this, that magic points are not exponential, I think that's a theoretical flaw in the way the magic system is designed, not an argument against RQ's exponential characteristic scale. If the characteristic scales were not exponential then you would need to give an elephant a size of 250 or so, and if the various characteristics were not all on the same scale, or at least all exponential or all linear, then it would not make sense to compare them, except on a log-linear table. Bleah! - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller "I don't have to practice what I preach 'cause I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to!" The Book of The Subgenius ------------------------------ From: "Gregory C. Walsh" Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 11:09:31 -0500 Subject: RQR: Mounted Combat I am starting to run, for the first time, a mounted campaign. The world is non gloranthan, area, culture, religions modeled loosly on central inner asia approximately 100 ad. I am using a version of RQ3 rules. I figure this mailing list has already hashed out mounted combat, since the rules on this subject need work. Can someone repost or send me or show me the way to an archive with notes on this subject. Much appreciated, Greg Walsh ------------------------------ From: Steve Bonnot Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 09:13:25 -0800 Subject: Re: RQR: Realism in RQ combat, other matters... I agree about making combat simpler. I have broken combat skills down to one-handed weapon skill, two-handed weapon skill, martial arts, etc. This leaves the choice of weapons up to the player. Specials are rolled like slashes (double rolled). I have run this methods for a few years now with good results. ------------------------------ From: Loren Miller Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 17:37:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: RQR: Re: Non-RQ Glorantha Loren replying to Devin: > There is really nothing stopping us old timers from playiong the way we play > viz a viz RQAiG. I mean, was anyone out there going to drop his or her > favorite house rules and go completely 100% RQAiG? I think not. I thought the whole point of the *playtest* of AIG was to use *all* the rules from AIG, even those that you thought were complete crap, at least for long enough to be able to explain why they were complete crap and your group forced you to change back or face a lynching. - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller "I don't have to practice what I preach 'cause I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to!" The Book of The Subgenius ------------------------------ From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> Date: 17 Nov 94 18:00:40 EST Subject: RQR: RQR Target test Is this the right address, Unca' ? ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #20 ****************************** 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.