Bell Digest vol02p01.txt

Subject: RQ Digest,  Volume 2,  Number 1

This issue:
	Knockback and Characters	(Mark Abbott)
	Height Vs. Weight Split		(Steven A. Schrader)
	A new experience system		(Andrew Bell)


Ed's note:  Welcome to the second volume!  From the initial response,  I never
expected to get as many subscribers as we currently have (43).  Still,  I'm
glad you're here,  and I hope the contents so far have been at least somewhat
interesting.  I encourage you,  however,  to let me know what you would like
to see more of.  Drop me a line about what you'd like to see,  and I'll
format the comments I get and put them in the digest.

Who's this Ed fellow, anyway?

---

From: abbott%dean.Berkeley.EDU@berkeley.edu (+Mark Abbott)

Subject: Knockback and characters

On the problem of knockback.  You could try this:  Impaling and
slashing weapons do 1m of knockback per 10 points of damage greater
than the size of the target.  Blunt weapons wouldn't change, ie 1m of
knockback per 5 points of damage greater than size.  This would
be a very minor change, easy to implement, and would still make
blunt weapons do more knockback than edged or pointed weapons.
If you try it, let me know how it works out.  I'm always rules
tinkering so I'm interested in most changes.

By the way, I rather like the knockback rules in RQIII.   I think they
add quite a bit of color and tactics to a fight.  One of my characters
died recently as a result of the damage sustained in a knockback.  He's
a little guy (Size 5) and he took a substantial shot to the body which
sent him flying.  He would have been out of the fight but still severely
injured except he flew into a tree.  I rolled max damage for bouncing
off a hard object and the extra damage killed him.  As the extra damage
was to an arm, the GM decided that his arm had been caught in a crook
of the tree and he was hanging there, feet on the ground, almost looking
like he was leaning on the tree.  Quite a vivid image.

Mark

---

[Ed's note:  I got this article in time for 1.11, and managed to forget to put
it in.  As a penalty for my negligence,  I'm cutting my salary in half. :-)]

From: "Steven A. Schrader 237 - 8196" 

Subject: Height Vs. Weight Split

I still think the two should be removed from the same classification. Although
weight IS related to height it is not dependent on it.  There is a lower limit
to the survivability of weight to a given height.  For example, a 2 meter tall
person would probably be dead if they weighed 100 pounds; however, that same
person could get as heavy as 1000 pounds.  This should be taken into account.
That is what I have tried to do with the following.  I do like the Idea of
basing weight on height, and to my surprise one of my initial methods seems to
be valid.  One other consideration of weight is strength.  It is impossible to
be light and very strong.  Look at all of your body builders, boxers, and
Amateur wrestlers.  Though they look light they are quite dense.  There could
be a case built for CON adding to the weight or at least keeping it from being
low.  This is too complex for me to handle now.  This is getting long so I
will wait for responses.

[Sorry about the long wait. - Ed.]
                                                       Frame
  Decimeters  Meters      Mixed         SR   Small   Medium    Large
                                              1       2   3      4
       1        0.1       0'3"          3     1       1    1      1
       2        0.2       0'7"          3     1       1    1      1
       3        0.3      0'11"          3     1       1    1      1
       4        0.4       1'3"          3     1       1    1      1
       5        0.5       1'7"          3     1       1    1      1
       6        0.6      1'11"          3     1       1    1      1
       7        0.7       2'3"          3     1       1    1      2
       8        0.8       2'7"          3     1       1    2      3
       9        0.9      2'11"          3     1       2    3      4
      10          1       3'3"          2     2       3    4      5
      11        1.1       3'7"          2     3       4    5      6
      12        1.2      3'11"          2     4       5    6      7
      13        1.3       4'3"          2     5       6    7      8
      14        1.4       4'7"          2     6       7    8      9
      15        1.5      4'11"          2     7       8    9     10
      16        1.6       5'2"          2     8       9   10     11
      17        1.7       5'6"          2     9       10  11     12
      18        1.8      5'10"          2     10      11  12     13
      19        1.9       6'2"          2     11      12  13     14
      20          2       6'6"          2     12      13  14     15
      21        2.1      6'10"          2     13      14  15     16
      22        2.2       7'2"          2     14      15  16     17
      23        2.3       7'6"          2     15      16  17     18
      24        2.4      7'10"          2     16      17  18     19
      25        2.5       8'2"          2     17      18  19     20
      26        2.6       8'6"          2     18      19  20     21
      27        2.7      8'10"          2     19      20  21     22
      28        2.8       9'2"          2     20      21  22     23
      29        2.9       9'6"          2     21      22  23     24
      30          3      9'10"          2     22      23  24     25
      31        3.1      10'2"          2     23      24  25     26
      32        3.2      10'5"          2     24      25  26     27
      33        3.3      10'9"          2     25      26  27     28
      34        3.4      11'1"          2     26      27  28     29
      35        3.5      11'5"          2     27      28  29     30
      36        3.6      11'9"          1     28      29  30     31

      Equation for Weight from Height is as follows:

                      Siz = Hit-9+1D4+Abs((Str-10)/2)

      The above was checked on the Metropolitan Life Insurance chart
for recommended weights for Heights.
      Some changes to Siz such be made based on str (perhaps an argument
can be made for con . . . Suggestion?).  Perhaps STR can be used as a
Modifier.  For example, for every 2 points greater OR less than 10 add 1
to the SIZ (always round down).
   For example, a character rolls up a person with a 16 Str, and using my
previous rules, rolls a character with a HIT of 19.  For his weight he
rolls 1D4 + 10.  He rolls a 2, medium build SIZ of 12.  He is strong and
since muscle is heavier than fat, he adds 6.  He has a SIZ of 15.  The
person is 1.9 meters tall(6' 2") and 202 - 219 pounds heavy.
   Another person rolls a character with a str of 4 and a HIT of 16.
The Siz roll is a 1, SIZ 8.  Adding in the Str modifier, SIZ goes from 8
to 11, or 143 - 155 pounds.  this person has more fat than muscle.
   Also, when succesfully raising STR, a character's Siz will be affected
Another note, I suggest the following classification changes.

Agility
DEX = Primary
STR = Secondary
SIZ = Negative
   Boat
   Dodge
   Ride

Locomotion
DEX = Primary
STR = Secondary
HIT = Secondary
SIZ = Negative
   Climb
   Jump
   Swim

Manipulation
DEX = Primary
INT = Secondary
   Same As RQ III

Attack% = Locomotion
Parry% = Primary(DEX) + Primary(Str) + Negative(HIT)
                                  -- Steven A. Schrader

---

From: acb@romeo.cs.duke.edu

Subject: A new experience system

One of the more common complaints about RQ is the experience system.  First
off,  it leads to skill check frenzy,  where the player tries to use as many
skills as possible to get as many checks as possible.  Second off,  it causes
the players to concentrate on skill check gathering as opposed to the
adventure itself.  It also requires book-keeping on the GM's part to remember
if a player succeeded in a skill that he would not immediately know yes or no.
It also doesn't make much sense.

To correct for this,  I have eliminated skill checks completely and replaced
them with an experience point system.  I do not have complex calculations to
determine how much a particular encounter was worth;  instead,  I evaluate
the characters' performance and reward based on that.  I haven't actually
used this system enough to tell what a good number of experience points is for
a typical adventure,  but in part that depends on your style/power level of
play.  Players should be limited in what percentage of their points they can
put in a single skill,  based in large part on what they do on the adventure.
You might even wish to give a certain part of the experience as "You get 50
riding experience points,  and 250 general experience.  Since we didn't do
any combat,  no more than 10% (25 exp. points) can go into any single combat
skill."  Note that I think it is perfectly reasonable to have skills like
65.34%, which means you have 34 of the 66 points needed to go up to 66%.

Anyway, the way the system works is: to go from x% in a skill to x+1% requires
x+1 experience points.  (Thus from 0% to 1% is 1 experience point.)  In total,
we get this table:
    %   cost       %  cost        %  cost        %  cost
   -----------------------------------------------------
    1     1       26   351       51  1326       76  2926
    2     3       27   378       52  1378       77  3003
    3     6       28   406       53  1431       78  3081
    4    10       29   435       54  1485       79  3160
    5    15       30   465       55  1540       80  3240
    6    21       31   496       56  1596       81  3321
    7    28       32   528       57  1653       82  3403
    8    36       33   561       58  1711       83  3486
    9    45       34   595       59  1770       84  3570
   10    55       35   630       60  1830       85  3655
   11    66       36   666       61  1891       86  3741
   12    78       37   703       62  1953       87  3828
   13    91       38   741       63  2016       88  3916
   14   105       39   780       64  2080       89  4005
   15   120       40   820       65  2145       90  4095
   16   136       41   861       66  2211       91  4186
   17   153       42   903       67  2278       92  4278
   18   171       43   946       68  2346       93  4371
   19   190       44   990       69  2415       94  4465
   20   210       45  1035       70  2485       95  4560
   21   231       46  1081       71  2556       96  4656
   22   253       47  1128       72  2628       97  4753
   23   276       48  1176       73  2701       98  4851
   24   300       49  1225       74  2775       99  4950
   25   325       50  1275       75  2850      100  5050

I have found this experience system is good for creating characters:  you
just build them with a certain number of experience points,  based on how good
they are.  I replace every x1 on the previous experience charts with 40 exp.,
so the age roll isn't so important.  It tends to equalize skills somewhat.

This system also allows for a similar skills system.  To work this,  I give
various skills a relatedness factor.  For example, bastard sword is .8
like broad sword.  To get your effective skill with the weapon you're less
effective with, take the square of the SSM (similar skills modifier) and
multiply that by the difference between the skills.  Add that to the lower
skill to get your effective skill.  Training up the lower skill costs (1-SSM)
as much.

Thus if you have 80% bastard sword skill and 40% broadsword skill,  your
effective broadsword skill is 40% + (.8 * .8 * (80% - 40%)),  which works out
to 66%.  It would cost you 20% as much to train up your broadsword skill to
80% as it would if you had no bastard sword skill.

Hopefully by next issue I will be able to combine this with my fighting style
concept.  I have a fair idea how it should work,  but I'd like to flesh out
the details before I write it all out.

     -Andrew
acb@romeo.cs.duke.edu

---

The RuneQuest(tm) mailing list is a courtesy of Andrew Bell.
All opinions and material above are the responsibility of the originator,  and
copyrights are held by them.

RuneQuest is a trademark of Chaosium, Inc.

Send submissions,  mailing list changes, requests for old article lists, etc.
to:

acb@romeo.cs.duke.edu
acb@dukeac.ac.duke.edu
or ...!mcnc!duke!romeo!acb

Request old articles by volume number and issue number.