From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V2 #170 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, 1 February 1996 Volume 02 : Number 170 TABLE OF CONTENTS ANDOVER@delphi.com Attacks and Parries Loren Miller Rules violations Brian Tickler Skills over 100%... Mmohrfield@aol.com yet another attack&parry post John Buckmaster rq4 Brian K. Curley Master of Attack % vs. Parry % Trent Smith "Elric!" martin 102541.3423@compuserv Attack-parry and defence David Dunham Levels of Result; Sorcery 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: ANDOVER@delphi.com Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 16:26:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Attacks and Parries Hmm, Loren, didn't you just violate a rule by repeating what I said? ) Jim Chapin ------------------------------ From: "Loren Miller" Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 17:11:58 EST Subject: Rules violations Here are the digest rules. They are summarized in the headers of every single message of the direct mailer. If you haven't noticed, please read ALL the headers of this message and see for yourself. Please do not make me chastize you or give you a yellow flag. > 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. - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller Life at the water's edge is the real life for men and women, and penguins ------------------------------ From: tickler@netcom.com (Brian Tickler) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 15:07:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Skills over 100%... This is a copy of an E-Mail I sent during a similar discussion a few months ago...I had the audacity to think that this might be a worthwhile contribution to *this* discussion... :) > >Hello, > > > >Robert has CC'ed me on this subject, so I will assume that I can pitch in > >my 2 cents worth. > > > >Since I still play RQ2 exclusively, I can assert that, yes, there is > >nothing quite so cool as a Berserk Stormbull with a Poleaxe operating at > 420% > >who can ginsu 2 Broos in one round with the luxury of knowing that they > each > >must subtract 110% from their parries (practically assuring that they > >will in fact be lying on the ground by strike rank 12; or 10). The > question > >is, are you trying to achieve a Conan-like "I can fight a dozen foes > without > >wearing any armor and kill them all in less than a minute" state, or do you > >prefer realism? > > > >Once you have determined this (and assuming that you want to go "Heroic"), > >be prepared for the annoying addition/subtraction involved. Easy for the > >players, who only have to worry about 1 or 2 attacks, but time-consuming > >for the GM. GMs also have to be careful because (A) they will get > frustrated > >when none of their "normal" creatures are able to parry (or hit) the > >characters anymore unless they have superior numbers, and (B) after getting > >frustrated, they will make some high-percentage monstrousity and > >accidently turn the party into tofu. Using this rule makes it much > >harder for the GM to effectively match up with the party. This has to be > >experienced to be believed. > > > >Personally, I believe in the "Heroic" approach (why play role-playing > >games if you don't?), but it is a problem and starts to break down when > >party members eclipse 150%. Why? Because there is lots of > >attack-percentage enhancing magic, and next to no parry-percentage > >enhancing magic. In addition, attack skills always go up faster than > >parry skills. Why? Because the higher your attack percentage, the more > >likely it is that a character could make it through a game without having > >to parry anyone (assuming the characters are faster, which is almost always > >the case). > > > >Example of this phenom: (using RQ2 rules; sorry) > > > >The aforementioned Stormbull, who has a 200% Pole Axe with a strike of 2, > >is facing off against a Thanatar Doom Lord with 200% Bastard Sword at > >strike rank 4 and a 200% Large Shield parry (I'll leave out his Defense > >since that won't translate well into an RQ3 example). The GM has designed > >this Thanatar with a reasonable expectation that he should be able to hold > >his own with no problem. > > > >Combat begins and the Stormbull casts Berserk and Bladesharp 4. He is > >now 420% (groans from the GM). The Thanatar (who has a Humakti Sword's > head > >and a Babeester Gor's head swinging on his belt), casts Parry 4 (the only > >parry-percentage enhancement around), and Great Parry. He is now > >parrying at 220% with a shield that can survive Slashing Pole Axe damage. > >At strike rank 2, the Stormbull swings and (with his 84% chance) > >Slashes. It's time for the Thanatar to parry, but he has to subtract > >320% from his 220% parry percentage, which reduces it to the minimum 5%. > >Ooops. He takes 6d6+4+2d6 damage to his...right leg. Hmmm...he falls > >down in shock. His allied spirit Heals the leg and he attempts to get up. > > >Next round, his right arm comes off. His allied spirit Heals this too. > >Next round, it's an abdomen hit. Fight over. The Thanatar was only > >standing for 2 seconds. Obviously, there could have been liberal amounts > >of other Rune Magic sprinkled around, but you get the idea. > > > >How does a GM handle this? Hmmm...a 400% attack/parry opponent? Now the > >Stormbull is the one lying on the ground with all his limbs lying just > >out of his reach...well, there's one way, a 200% attack/400% parry > opponent. > >Wait, that's just absurd. How could anyone reasonably or realistically > >be expected to have a parry percentage twice as good as his attack > >percentage? > > > >Now you begin to see why they changed this rule for RQ3, but it's still > >not the right solution. The percentage-based system works great up to > >100% or even a little bit beyond but has serious problems once > >percentages get higher. This is in fact the major "bust" of the entire > >RQ system (in spirit combat, a 500 POW spirit loses to a 510 POW spirit > >every time...) but it's still the best system out there. > > > >P.S. You guys should consider having these discussions on the RQ Rules > >Digest, so that beginning/less experienced RQ players can have the benefit > of > >gleaning ideas from your discussions. Also, someone might have a brilliant > >solution nobody else has come up with yet. As a steadfast RQ2 player, I use and firmly believe in the "subtraction" rule; but I will admit that the RQ3 method is easier and quicker in play. There is also less of the "bloodbath" effect. The problem with Martin's example is that you don't find *player characters* with 150% attack and 150% parry. My experience has been that, in general, attack percentages increase 10%-20% faster than corresponding parry percentages (80%-90% faster for missile weapons, especially slings :)...). In addition, players will invariably be using Bladesharp/Bludgeon to enhance their attack; how many people can use Humakt's Parry spell to nullify this advantage? Precious few. From the GM's perspective, it is much easier to miscalculate when designing opponents when those opponents include individuals with percentages in the 125%+ range. A "small" percentage advantage of 25% in attack vs. parry/defense can spell doom for a group of player characters in various situations where a PC is forced into one-on-one matchups with the superior foe. Note that a PC who is 120% attack and 100% parry facing a foe with 140% attack and 120% parry is at a much more pronounced disadvantage than a quick glance at the numbers would indicate. The PC will get a blow through without being parried less than 5% of the time, where his/her foe will get their blow through just under 40% of the time. While it would be simplistic to translate this into 8-to-1 odds against the PC, it *is* undeniably a huge advantage. Berserk, Morale, and Fanaticism make the picture even more muddy, as do the various critters that have multiple attacks. Having said all that, I still prefer to use the subtraction method. I feel its aesthetic advantages are more than worth its drawbacks. - -- Brian T. Tickler E-Mail: tickler@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Mmohrfield@aol.com Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 18:12:29 -0500 Subject: yet another attack&parry post Has anybody thought of using the rules from Elric!? In Elric! a critical hit is defined as a role equal to 20 percent or less of a characters total skill level(same as RQ's special). A critical hit in melee causes double damage if it is not parried. It may be blocked by a critical parry, which prevents all damage, or by a normal parry, which allows the blow to get past but only to cause normal damage. IMO this method solves most of the problems which have been discussed here, parrying a more skilled opponent is more difficult, the the players don't have to calculate an opponents skill, Berserk and Fanaticism are more powerful than they are now but aren't superpowered. Mark Mohrfield ------------------------------ From: John Buckmaster Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 17:19:14 -0600 (CST) Subject: rq4 I've heard the term rq4 mentioned a lot in messages and on the web. Could somebody please explain what it is (e.g. fan rules, playtest product, actual production game etc.) thanks John ******************************* ** ** ** I can't do that Dave. ** ** -HAL 9000 ** ** ** ******************************* ------------------------------ From: "Brian K. Curley (Master of Time & Space)" Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 17:38:12 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Attack % vs. Parry % On Thu, 1 Feb 1996 Colin wrote: > Not according to my reading of the rules. You need a crit dodge to > avoid a crit hit, but you don't need a crit parry. > - A normal parry will block any hit up to the AP of the parrying weapon. I'm pretty sure this is wrong, or it should be, because a critical hit should "ignore" armor, including the AP of a parrying weapon. Brian +-------------------------+------------------------------------------+ | Brian Curley | I'm your only friend... I'm not your | | Holder of Previous | only friend, but I'm a little glowing | | Knowledge | friend but really I'm not actually | | bkc@axle.adp.wisc.edu | your friend but I am... | +-------------------------+------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ From: Trent Smith Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 16:57:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Elric!" Mark Mohrfield (MMohrfield@aol.com) said: > Has anybody thought of using the rules from Elric!? In Elric! a critical hit > is defined as a role equal to 20 percent or less of a characters total skill > level(same as RQ's special). A critical hit in melee causes double damage if > it is not parried. It may be blocked by a critical parry, which prevents all > damage, or by a normal parry, which allows the blow to get past but only to > cause normal damage. This looks to me like a simplified version of the "steps" system that Steve Perrin (among others) have posted and I like it. Rather than needing a complicated chart, which is subject to misinterpretation, both players simply count up their number of steps and subtract, which covers every combo from critcal attack vs fumbled parry to the opposite. This fits in very well with my image of Elric! (and, to a lesser extent because of the different genres, CoC and Nephilim) as a RQ-Lite rules system. The difference between the "Lite" rules of Elric! and the "real" rules of RQ would be that the person with the extra successes wouldn't necessarily have to do double damage, but could chose a special effect (I believe people have mentioned such possibilities as ignoring armor, choosing hit location, disarming, knockback, etc). I think that in general a good way to approach a revision/modernization of the RQ system would be to look at the way the Chaosium games (which haven't been stagnant since 1983) have evolved and follow their example, but also including all of the extra options and details that make RQ a more complete, realistic, and (IMO) better system. As an example of the kind of relationship I picture, try comparing RQ2 and the 1st ed of Stormbringer. Obviously they're based on the same system, but Stormbringer removed a lot of the extra options and detail, which fit its more High Fantasy setting. Anyway, I think that's a better idea than just tinkering with the rules for no apparent reason (like the changed weapon/armor stats in RQ:AiG) and ending up with something that's different, but not necessarily better. Trent Smith ------------------------------ From: martin <102541.3423@compuserve.com> Date: 01 Feb 96 20:09:04 EST Subject: Attack-parry and defence Brian Tickler noted >The problem with Martin's example is that you don't find *player characters* >with 150% attack and 150% parry. My experience has been that, in general, >attack percentages increase 10%-20% faster than corresponding parry >percentages (80%-90% faster for missile weapons, especially slings :)...). In >addition, players will invariably be using Bladesharp/Bludgeon to enhance their >attack; how many people can use Humakt's Parry spell to nullify this advantage? >Precious few. Brian is right here, attack does tend to go up higher than parry and there is only 1 parry spell, limited to Humakti and Tarnils which is a shame. However, RQ 2 got round this with Defence. In most games I've seen the extra Attack% is often offset by defence and of course the handy Shimmer spell can further reduce the attack chance. So a 180% Attack, 140% Parry Warrior with 30% Defence fighting a 200% Attack Berserk (who are only allowed half defence and no dodges and parries) would still have a 70% chance of parrying, not to shabbly. There is a good chance you'll survive his attack and lop off something vital. Shimmer ups your defence of course and this reduces attack chance from all attacks including missiles, hence its actually a better spell than Parry in a way. So in the same example if a shimmer 6 is added to the defender, he's back up to 100% parry but the Berserk has bladesharp 6 so hes 230%! Now the attacked warrior can dispel the magic of the Berserk as both he and his allied spirit are nuts and incapable of casting spells. Additionally, Dullblade is another method of reducing attack chance but I find it is rarely used by anyone. Shame. So while the Berserk is coming in, you cast Dullblade 6, shimmer 6, hes down to 170% etc My whole point is that a combination of Attack, Parry, Defence, Dodge and spells like Shimmer, Dullblade and Parry give such amazing combat flexibility that it makes combat more interesting and spectacular, which surely is what is wanted, rather than long drawn out slugfests. Martin Laurie ------------------------------ From: dunham@pensee.com (David Dunham) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 18:39:24 -0800 Subject: Re: Levels of Result; Sorcery Chris Johnson proposed a special effects system similar to Steve Perrin's: >Special Choose 1 >Critical Choose 2 >HyperCrit Choose 3 >SuperCrit Choose 4 I'm not happy with "hypercrit" and "supercrit" (in that it seems odd to have special rules for something that happens less than 1% of the time). If you get a SuperCrit (however you roll 0.25%), can you add extra damage 4 times? I haven't worked out details, but it might be amusing to add "Roll on the Fumble Table" to the effects somehow (perhaps by using Steve's idea and using two differences, thus a Critical vs a Success could force the lesser combatant to roll). This could mean that a critical parry against a normal hit could knock the attacker's weapon back into himself. (You might have to revise the Fumble Table somewhat, too.) Tal Meta wrote >I was a bit suprised to discover how many people felt sorcery was broken. I don't think it's broken. It may be possible to improve it, but when I've used it, it seems to work OK. David Dunham Pensee Corporation dunham@pensee.com Voice/Fax: 206 783 7404 http://www.pensee.com/dunham/ "I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want." "What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V2 #170 ******************************* 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