From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #149 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Wednesday, 15 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 149 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 Bruce Lionel Mason Steve Perrin's Crits Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox. Criticals, Locations & Steve's System SPerrin@aol.com Crit Damage and Hit Location Loren Miller RQ4 character generation teaser Hugh Foster rUNEpOWER, ChaGen Hugh Foster POW gain checks SPerrin@aol.com Criticals; power levels SPerrin@aol.com 10% criticals SPerrin@aol.com Criticals, Specials & Loc... SPerrin@aol.com just crits SPerrin@aol.com Steve Perrin's Crits ANDOVER@delphi.com RQ without locations ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Lionel Mason Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 14:35:38 -0330 Subject: Re: Steve Perrin's Crits On Wed, 15 Mar 1995, Kevin Rose wrote: [lots of stuff I agree with deleted...] > > Having a critical do +some (or double) damage would work, or maybe vs half > armor, or maybe a table, Invariably combining massivly increased damage > with massively reduced protection is not a combination that results in > enjoyable play. I dislike combat systems that seem calculated to result > in really high death and dismemberment rates amoung PC's. > I've been using crits =1/10th and do double damage OR ignore armour OR ignore magical protection (player's choice) for over a year and it works really well. I also use the Nephilim fumbles (99-00 for <50%, 00 for >50%) and that is good too. What I did to complicate things was also allow PCs to tell me we what they would like the critical to do rather than the first two options. Eg they could choose a hit location, or have the NPC fall to the floor, be disarmed or whatever. It also worked out as a good way to add fighting styles a la RQ:AiG. Eg one of the Orlanthi used a critical, hit opponent twice as per "flurry". What I found was that this added to the storytelling feeling in combat but didn't hold the game up as it only mattered on 1/10 successful hits. In a rules book this is one of these rules that can be added in as the players and GM get more used to playing with the basic concepts. > Kevin Oh well, back to the PhD. ---Bruce ------------------------------ From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 10:25:58 PST Subject: Criticals, Locations & Steve's System From this environment I can not quote other people's response so people will have to bear with me. Criticals at skill/10 I like because it is simple and preserves the 'low roll is good' heuristic. Specials I like but the degree at which they should be set at is a moot point. A good effect from a Critical is not a double. I can cite an instance that highlights this: during a game of Stormbringer a thief character chose small weapons that suited the character (lots of encouragement from me as GM) but he had to fight someone wearing armour with a high fixed Armour value (SB note - he was an Agent of Law). Although he was expected to loose the fight when the criticals came, the only way he could penetrate the armour, the damage doubled and the effect was very unsatifisfying. Doubled low damage is not very potent and double high damage is too over-whelming. Prehaps Ray's add 6 for a Critical might work. The problem with locations is exacerbated by Steve Perrin's system where random locational hits are not an effective way to kill an opponent. This random roll for location slows down play as well just as the writing of HP and AP of each location slows down GM preperation. Another problem I'll throw into the pot is that weapon AP plus armour AP can often be far too high. I must admit that the SB damage dice where fairly simple as if you knew how much damage a character had dealt yoy just roll a dice and apply the total damage to the single HP pool. Bruce's system sound a bit like FUDGE. If you are planning to use this a house rule look at rec.games.frp.design where this kind of thing is being discussed at the moment as the FUDGE objective damage system is currently under review. Another rich sources of alternatives other than SB or Elric! is the Fantasy Trip, a worthwhile addition for anyone's gaming self (especially if you actually want to make all that loverly GURPS material workable :-)). Regards -- Guy Robinson -- ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 14:47:56 -0500 Subject: Re: Crit Damage and Hit Location Kevin Rose makes a good point: >Having a critical do +some (or double) damage would work, or maybe vs half armor, or maybe a table, Invariably combining massivly increased damage with massively reduced protection is not a combination that results in enjoyable play. I dislike combat systems that seem calculated to result in really high death and dismemberment rates amoung PC's.< That brings up the proposition I laid before the list to massive indifference some time back, unconnected to my 10% fumble or critical proposal. I suggested that Specials to 2x damage and Criticals 3x damage, with Special Parries doing 2x armor points and Critical Fumbles doing 3x armor points. Thus, there is the chance that a critical attack will blow away an opponent and a chance that a Critical Parry can stop even the damage from a Great Troll's halberd. And one does not have to worry about comparing what kind of roll was made, just how much damage and/or armor is available. While I prefer to keep RQ's Hit Locations, otherwise it's just BRP, it occurs to me that using the Elric/Stormbringer armor system on NPCs would probably accomplish the same thing as Hit Locations in a large battle and be easier for a GM to keep track of. Just assume that a really bad armor roll means that a really vital part of the critter was hit. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: "Loren Miller" Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 16:32:56 EST Subject: Re: RQ4 character generation teaser Colin Watson asks: >The Acid Test is how it compares with the RQ4 experience/training >system. Does it really take twice as long to reach 90% as it does to >reach 75%? Does it really take 8 times as long to reach 90% as it >does to reach 45%? (I don't know how RQ4 training/experience works >so I can't comment; but someone should check this for consistency.) 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. 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. > I notice some skills such as First Aid and Search are cheaper than >others such as Weapon Attacks and Scan. Is this because the former >skills are inherently easier to learn? With RQ4 the writers introduced the concept of Easy, Medium, Hard, and Very Hard skills. Of your examples First Aid is Easy and Attack is Medium. >BTW is RQ4 getting rid of different base chances for different >skills? No. >If not, 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). - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Life at the water's edge is the real life for men and women ------------------------------ From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> Date: 15 Mar 95 16:49:49 EST Subject: rUNEpOWER, ChaGen >> The last I heard, OJ & Mike are considering having RunePower as a suggested variant for "high magic" game worlds and campaign << The question now seems to be, Will OJ do it ? >>Scratch one major villain. Certainly a lot less fun than the duel I was planning << Well, obvious. Put in two of him, let 'em roast number one, then fight number two without magical aid... Another excellent way of limiting excessive Divine Magic use. BTE all this "it's the end of the adventure so I used my magic up" stuff. Should players be getting a sign on the wall saying "last room in this dungeon" ? It may be the major battle with the big baddie, but there's nothing to stop the GM having said baddie's Captain of Guards regain conciousness (just nicked, guv!), and be waiting for the triumphant and spell-less PCs as they amble relaxedly home. I mean, can you think of a horror film where there isn't an after-we-think-he's-dead-he-pops-up-suddenly scene ? >> Also, with RunePower the PCs are much more likely to have that one spell that ruins your day. The Orlanthi are much more likely to Fly when they need to, and Teleport out of capture. They Command that elemental. They only have Thunderbolt on the cloudy days. << I don't see that. After all, (as I understand RP), they can't cast "any Orlanth spell", but "any Divine spell they know", analagously to Spirit Magic. So if they've never learned or used Teleport, they can't just look it up in the players' book and expertly use it. You have 10 RP points; you've used Shield, Lighting, Divination and Fly in the past. You can smack up Shield 10; or Shield 5, 2 Lightning and a quick Divvy to decide where to shoot - but you _can't_ Teleport. This may not be the "official" RP rule, but it seems easy enough to use and govern to me - and easier to explain to players.... >> The problem still remains of generating initial skills for starting characters. You can hardly say "take 200 skill checks and distribute them as you like". Unless you like the sound of rolling dice. << Seperate problem, innit ? Creating characters doesn't involve training, but simulating experience and adolescence. ------------------------------ From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> Date: 15 Mar 95 16:50:26 EST Subject: POW gain checks >> A POW check every other week would not be at all unreasonable. Should the GM rule that every game he runs takes place in a different season? Is he or she keeping track of everything else that's happening during that accelerated time << It may sound laughably simple, but why not keep a log of how often your players get POW checks in nomal play, and then use that to arrive at a "normal" value ? Then multiply by .75 or so (because downtime is "quiet") and apply when they say "OK training for 6 months". Or is forethought a naughty idea ? Only joking - too much time in the corporate environment! - ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Hugh Foster [100326,446] | | | | Happiness seems to require a modicum of external prosperity. | - ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 17:54:23 -0500 Subject: Re: Criticals; power levels David Cake opins: > 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).< As do I, David. I dunno what Oliver, Mike and Carl are doing about the situation, as I haven't seen the new draft yet. 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. Ray thought that this ability should start with characters at 50%, but I'm not so sure about this. WIth current ideas for character generation, this could leave us with entirely too many characters throwing multiple blows too soon. Not so bad for the player, Hell for the GM. Probably the basic %ile for any one part of a multiple attack should be 50%, making it impossible for anyone below 100%. And this 100% is a natural ability or the PC magically enhanced with something like Fanaticism, not from something like Bladesharp. One could go into an elaborate "bidding" system where the PC's attack is divided secretly (say 50% and 75%) and the defender must pick one to defend against without knowing which was higher, but this should be kept for duels. In normal combat, just split the %ile in half. And, of course, the attacker has the option of just attacking at 100% and ignoring the rest of his ability; it's a good question whether the criticals, etc. should be based on total ability or just the 100%. Ideas? Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 17:54:33 -0500 Subject: Re: 10% criticals Malcolm Cohen opins: > RQ4d2 reduced the fumble chance from 5% of fail to 2% of fail (approx). I find this an improvement; fumbles still happen in a typical combat but it is nicer (better epic feel) to have the fumble rate much lower than the critical rate. Putting the fumble chance up to 10% of fails would make the game feel like KlutzQuest.< This is a good point. The idea of my "use the 0" system was that criticals would be more common for higher power folks and fumble more common for lower power, but perhaps a straight 01-50 = 99-00 fumble, 51+ = 00 fumble is a better idea for MGF. I still want there to be some fumble chance, I've seen too many good fighters just plain blow it (or have equipment problems) to want anyone get away with no fumbles. I also admit to liking the concept of lowest roll is most critical--it's certainly traditional--, it just seemed like reading the "0" made things a lot simpler. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the damage done by criticals would have to be monitored... As for problems people have with doubling damage for a critical or special (depending on how things go) we can always restrict the damage to doubled damage bonus damage or a minimum of 3 (to use a magic number) for those people without damage bonuses or negative damage bonuses. This avoids the problems some people were having with doubling weapon damage--it makes a halberd supergross and a dagger not much better than useless. As an alternative, criticals could ignore armor but not magic. This really hypes magic (not necessarily bad for a fantasy game) but means that things like the Shield 20 spell discussed elsewhere has to be curbed. Also, it puts us back with comparing who has a critical attack against who has a special parry, etc. Onward, Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 17:54:39 -0500 Subject: Re: Criticals, Specials & Loc... Guy Robinson asks: > Why are we keeping locations if Steve is seeking to simplify things?< Well, as I said before, I am not necessarily trying to simplify things--just make attempts at a consistent design philosophy that would be enjoyable as well. Now, I like simplicity and consider that a major element of any design philosophy, but for the purposes of this blue sky rulesmongering, it is not the only criteria. Hit Locations, as I said to Guy privately and inferred earlier, help define RuneQuest to me. However, as I said in that earlier post, Hit Locations for NPCs are not all that necessary to me for MGF. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 17:54:40 -0500 Subject: Re: just crits David Dunham opins: >However, to keep the "low roll is good" of RQ, I don't like the idea of using the last digit as the determiner -- 01 has always been a crit, and it would be shocking to any RQ player if it's not. Dividing by 10 ought to be easy enough in play, it's dividing by 20 and 5 that everyone has trouble with. (However, if you use a Pendragon-like opposed roll, the high roll really should win. Any crit would beat a non-crit, however.)< 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. And I still find the Pendragon high skill roll counter-intuitive. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 17:54:48 -0500 Subject: Re: Steve Perrin's Crits Bruce Lionel Mason surfaces from the murks of his phd thesis to say: >What I did to complicate things was also allow PCs to tell me we what they would like the critical to do rather than the first two options. Eg they could choose a hit location, or have the NPC fall to the floor, be disarmed or whatever. It also worked out as a good way to add fighting styles a la RQ:AiG. Eg one of the Orlanthi used a critical, hit opponent twice as per "flurry". What I found was that this added to the storytelling feeling in combat but didn't hold the game up as it only mattered on 1/10 successful hits. In a rules book this is one of these rules that can be added in as the players and GM get more used to playing with the basic concepts.< A very nice system, but again it runs into the situation of having to compare critical hits against critical parries, etc. Of course, RQ3 has that problem now, but I'd like to see something simpler for RQ4... Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: ANDOVER@delphi.com Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 20:24:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: RQ without locations Guy Robinson asks "Do people that that RQ without locations would not be RQ?" (I assume he means "think that?") To quote Steve Perrin, "In a word, yes!" Jim Chapin ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #149 ******************************* 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.