From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #167 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, 24 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 167 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 Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederla RQ Rules Digest: V1 #166 Colin Watson Great Secrets of RPGs (was Heroism and Cri Colin Watson Criticals mdouglas_at_AIGWHQ@mailhost. Great Secrets of RPGs (was Heroism and Cri David Dunham via RadioMail crits; skills Loren Miller Heroic/mundane SPerrin@aol.com Criticals SPerrin@aol.com Heroic/mundane Bryan J. Maloney [none] Bryan J. Maloney Anything from Storyteller is BAD Bryan J. Maloney Sandy's not so good crit suggestion SPerrin@aol.com crits; skills SPerrin@aol.com Anything from Storyteller... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 09:13:08 +0100 Subject: Re: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #166 > From: SPerrin@aol.com > Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 19:27:11 -0500 > Subject: Re: crits > > In response to my all-encompassing, totally logical, and solving-all-problems > answer to the crits problem, Bruce Mason says: > > >It's an interesting idea only problem I see is how to determine criticals > for anything over than attacks? For example how would you decide a > critical parry.< That spoil-sport... > Well, of course you'd... > > Then again, we could always... > > Obviously, the solution to this is... Roll for parried damage, and apply the same rules... ------------------------------ From: Colin Watson Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 12:44:31 GMT Subject: Great Secrets of RPGs (was Re: Heroism and Criticals) __________________ Bruce Lionel Mason: > I figure moments where you are rolling dice for your PC are those pivotal > times in their life. A time when, if you like, shit is more likely to > happen. [...] It's my belief that Smaug lived > most of its life without being in a role-playing game. Therein lies one of the Great Secrets of RPGs. The unwritten rule that "the monster only fights one battle". Smaug need only win one fight of consequence: the fight against the PCs. This is why monsters are always on full MP and uninjured when you meet them: because they've never fought before. This is why the Bad Guys are prepared to blow every last Divine Spell: because they'll never have to fight again... The PCs, on the other hand, are really screwed by this. They don't just have to win one fight. They have to win ALL their fights. They're bruised and battered but have to conserve their magic 'cos they never know when they might need it. This is also why PCs get shafted by crits and fumbles. If the Bad Guy gets lucky and rolls a crit he "wins". Conversely, the PCs can roll crits all night and it doesn't really help them: it only achieves what they would hopefully gain eventually anyway. That's why PCs need more than an even break to compensate for this massive disadvantage. That is, unless you want the PCs to drop as fast as the Bad Guys. In which case you must bear in mind the fact that the Bad Guys should have died a long time ago from someone else's critical. :-) ____________ Steve Perrin: > I both play and GM (though have done neither with RQ for several years). > How many of the "scrag 'em all" group are basically GMs? How many of the "too > many criticals" people are basically players? I'm 85% player, 15% GM. Does it show? ________________ Bryan J. Maloney: > Looks to me like there are plenty of heroes who didn't get > appropriately dramatic deaths. [...] Why deny this possibility completely? Indeed. Being poisoned, posessed, falling, drowning or being caught with your armour off are all easy routes to an ignominious demise in RQ. ___ CW. ------------------------------ From: Colin Watson Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 13:36:18 GMT Subject: Re: Criticals ____________ Marc Philips replied: > > If you roll 01-05% then roll again. If you succeed it's a crit. > > If you roll 06-20% then roll again. If you succeed it's a special. > > If you roll 95-00% then roll again. If you fail it's a fumble. > > I like it, simple and quick, and no tables needed. Unfortunately it doesn't > work for skill higher than 100% : Rurik Grosbill with 150% attack would > special 19% (01-20 and then roll 01-95) of the time rather than 30%. Good point. I hadn't considered that. Ok, for skills over 100% a roll of 01-05% is always a crit; but you also have a chance that 06-10% is a crit too. Say Rurik has 147% attack. If he rolls 01-05% it's a crit, no question. If he rolls 06-10% he rolls again. If the followup is 47% or less (ie. rolling against his skill fraction which is above 100%) it's a crit. Likewise 06-20% is always (at least) a special and he has a further chance of getting a special on a roll of 21-40% (if he follows up with a <=47% roll). I think this is more-or-less what Boris has said. ___ You could, if you wished, also reduce the chance of fumbling for characters over 100%: Rurik has 147% attack. If he rolls 96-00% it might be a fumble. He gets one roll against 100% (which fails on 96-00%) and one roll against 47%. If *either* of these succeeds he avoids the fumble. ___ Skills over 200% can obviously be handled in a similar way: 01-10% is a definite crit. On 11-15% roll again against that fraction of your skill over 200% etc. etc. ___ CW. ------------------------------ From: mdouglas_at_AIGWHQ@mailhost.aig.com Date: Fri, 24 Mar 95 08:35:57 cst Subject: Re: Great Secrets of RPGs (was Re: Heroism and Criticals) >>Therein lies one of the Great Secrets of RPGs. The unwritten rule that >>"the monster only fights one battle". Smaug need only win one fight >>of consequence: the fight against the PCs. but the other side of the coin is that the PC's only fight one fight of consequence...the one they are in now. >>This is why monsters are always on full MP and uninjured when you meet them: >>This is why the Bad Guys are prepared to blow every last Divine Spell: Thus the difference between a burgaler and someone defending his home, the burgaler may have robbed seven or eight houses that night and have plans for more...the home owner is only interested in tonight's assault. The PC's predicaments are generally by choice, if they wish to shack up somewhere and wait for someone to raid them, steal their gold, etc...let them, albeit not a very fun game but at least they can't complain about being "fresh". >>The PCs, on the other hand, are really screwed by this. They don't >>just have to win one fight. They have to win ALL their fights. tell them not to get into so many fights...it's dangerous. This is the reason prize fighters don't fight everyone that asks..sooner or later they gonna looooose. >>If the Bad Guy gets lucky and rolls a crit he "wins". and if the PC gets a crit he wins and so begins the healing process and the time to choose if he is "fresh" enough for another go round. >>That's why PCs need more than an even break to compensate for this massive >>disadvantage. If they (the PC's) make a bed, let them lie in it. Besides, if death weren't around every corner what would the fun in adventuring be? It's supposed to be dangerous. Ever notice Indiana Jones' fighting style? A good pair of running shoes and a revolver in a sword fight. ________________ Bryan J. Maloney: > Looks to me like there are plenty of heroes who didn't get > appropriately dramatic deaths. [...] Why deny this possibility completely? Rightly so, but isn't any death dramatic? Mike Douglas aka mdouglas@aig.com aka That-mean-ole-killer-GM ------------------------------ From: David Dunham (via RadioMail) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 08:20:23 -0800 Subject: Re: crits; skills Steve Perrin asks > I both play and GM (though have done neither with RQ for several years). >How many of the "scrag 'em all" group are basically GMs? How many of the "too >many criticals" people are basically players? As a GM, I'd say my NPCs get critted too much. As a player, some of my characters' most memorable moments are criticals. So it's probably about the right frequency. As a rules simplifier, I'd say a single category of 1/10 skill doing choice of special effect would be fine. BTW, my 7 POW character is most famous not for my whining about spell casting, but for a fumble; he wears no armor, so he cut himself in half when he fumbled his greatsword and did max damage to chest. I don't think anyone has successfully envisioned this mighty blow. >My >masterplan is to use various folk songs (Tam Lin, Thomas the Rhymer, Little >Sir Hugh) mostly taken from Steeleye Span records as the basis for the events >in the campaign. Cool. John Barleycorn has to die, too. Bruce Mason said >Skills list simplified rather than expanded. I have a working hypothesis >that you don't want to see more than 30 skills listed on a character >sheet. I think Pendragon has it about right. I concur; I dislike the RQ4 idea that we need more skills and subskills. This goes for weapon skills, too, those are far too specialized compared to most of the other skills. If other skills were like weapons, where Battleaxe and Hatchet are separate skills, then we'd have skills like Bandage Wound and Bandage Burn instead of First Aid. ------------------------------ From: "Loren Miller" Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 11:55:30 EST Subject: Heroic/mundane Nils Weinander: >Just >assume that dragons _can_ survive but that criticals do happen in >the fights which are played out, because otherwise the poor characters >could never win against dragons and such. All right. This makes sense. I realize this is dangerously close to violating rule #1, but hold on a second for redemption. >On the other hand, it would be nice if the rules could handle both >grim and gritty stuff where most die young and heroic and cinematic >stuff where the characters can act like saga heroes. This is something that I've been advocating for a long time. I think the rules should officially acknowledge two types of game scene. I'd call these types of scene the heroic scene and the dramatic scene. IMO fast, preparatory scenes are heroic scenes in which the heroes and their major opposition aren't very likely to die. These are the scenes that build tension, that complicate the situation so that when it is resolved the resolution is immensely dangerous and tricky. In these scenes I'd discard all critical and special and fumble rules. A hit is a hit is a hit. Smaug isn't endangered by random arrows. Zorak Zoran rune lords don't get bitten by a mangy cur and die of a septic infection. No lucky trollkin kill Rurik with a spear to the eye. Dramatic scenes are the climactic scenes in which the heroes and their major enemies meet and the issue is decided one way or another. These scenes are the scenes where life and the world change, where PCs and major enemies die. This scene is the kind of scene where Smaug is in danger, where a Zorak Zoran death lord can get offed by a dagger to the groin, where Rurik's luck runs out at last. In these scenes I'm all in favor of using all the nasty critical and special hit and fumble rules to kill off PCs and NPCs. I like this approach for several reasons. First, there's nothing as frustrating as having your PC killed early in the game session. You can roll up another character, but that takes time, and by the time you're ready half the night has gone and you've wasted the GM's time checking things out and the other players are annoyed because the game is regularly interrupted and the mood destroyed by character generation questions. And then you may or may not be able to insert the character into play. If your character is killed early you might as well go home. Second, there are few things as exciting and enjoyable as having your PC killed at the end of the game session in memorable circumstances and for a good reason. Whether it's heroic self-sacrifice to delay the overwhelming enemy just enough so your friends can retreat, or getting hit in the back by a misfired arrow, or slipping off the edge of the bridge and falling into the chasm, or a one-on-one duel with a foe who outclasses you, PC death at the end of the session is something to be proud of, to remember and commemorate. Third, it's tough on the GM when a major enemy who was predicated to be the center of the night's scenario gets killed in the first meeting. Often, rational judgement would say that the rest of the scenario never happens, and the PCs end up going shopping for fresh flowers for the rest of the night. But the average shopping trip does not make for an exciting adventure and in any case would wear thin after one, or at most two, sessions. If the GM knows that his major villain isn't going to die at least until the end of the night then he can be freer to mess with everybody's minds in the mean time. He can build up tension in the game, and then release it in the final scene with rules that expose exactly how fragile these heroes can be. Fourth, it's much easier to come up with a fun replacement for a major character, whether PC or NPC, between sessions than it is in the middle of one. Obviously the GM would have to start designing adventures so that the climactic action happened at the end of a session, but IMHO that's a good idea anyway. Comments? - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Life at the water's edge is the real life for men and women ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 13:27:56 -0500 Subject: Re: Criticals Graeme Lindsell says: > But many of them [changes in rules] are less complex, and shouldn't be rejected out of hand. I don't think people are suggesting that these should be adopted without playtesting.< Very true. But is anyone playtesting them? Some of the suggestions are straight out of house rules, and I thank folks like Brandon, Bruce Mason and Styopa (and what is your full name, Steve?) for sending me their house rules to peruse, but has anyone tested any of the other ideas that have wandered past? I intend to do some of it with my Celtic Faerie campaign, but that probably won't get going for a couple of weeks. Has anyone with an ongoing campaign (or are you all too busy talking on email?) tried any of these ideas? Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 13:28:10 -0500 Subject: Re: Heroic/mundane Loren Miller has some very good points about when things like crits and fumbles should be used. I think an essay on when the crit and fumble should come into play (perhaps with some other optional rules) would be very good for the generic rules. Maybe Loren should contact Oliver, Mike and Carl about redoing this little essay for inclusion in the book? Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 95 14:51:14 -0500 Subject: [none] ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 95 16:00:45 -0500 Subject: Anything from Storyteller is BAD Anything from Storyteller is pretty much crap. I've played the games for some time (mostly because my wife does), and I speak from experience. Storyteller games are crap. PS: The rule that Sandy proposes isn't very good. I would ALWAYS fight unarmed, because this means that I have a 33% chance of doing 3 points of damage to any hit location REGARDLESS of the amount of armor my opponent wears. Those are damned good odds, especially if I also learn Ironhand 4 or more. Then, I can KILL any RuneLord on 1/3 of ANY successful hit!! ------------------------------ From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 95 17:10:37 -0500 Subject: Sandy's not so good crit suggestion Sandy's crit suggestion makes unarmed combat with Ironhand the best possible weapon in RuneQuest. If I have Ironhand 3, I'll have a 1/3 chance of ANY hit I do unarmed taking out a hit location on a RuneLord. (3+3 and NO armor. ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 19:14:06 -0500 Subject: Re: crits; skills Dave Dunham makes some interesting points about crits and then says: > I dislike the RQ4 idea that we need more skills and subskills. This goes for weapon skills, too, those are far too specialized compared to most of the other skills. If other skills were like weapons, where Battleaxe and Hatchet are separate skills, then we'd have skills like Bandage Wound and Bandage Burn instead of First Aid.< Excellent point. I don't want to get to the point where it's just "combat" or the Hero system OCV/DCV system where specialization is left to buyin specializ ed levels. But where should we draw the line? Weapon groups like sword, axe, bow, etc.? I'll go for it. Steve Perrin ------------------------------ From: SPerrin@aol.com Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 19:36:20 -0500 Subject: Re: Anything from Storyteller... Bryan Maloney dumps on Storyteller games and says: >The rule that Sandy proposes isn't very good. I would ALWAYS fight unarmed, because this means that I have a 33% chance of doing 3 points of damage to any hit location REGARDLESS of the amount of armor my opponent wears. Those are damned good odds, especially if I also learn Ironhand 4 or more.< Good point Bryan. But I'm Steve, the rules guy, not Sandy the Glorantha guy. Keep us straight. Steve (I wrote the rules, not the monsters) Perrin ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #167 ******************************* 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.