From: owner-runequest-rules@ (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.MPGN.COM Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V1 #181 Reply-To: runequest-rules@mpgn.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@ Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@ Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Thursday, October 15 1998 Volume 01 : Number 181 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS RE: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Combat skill mechanics [RQ-RULES] Skill difficulties [RQ-RULES] Special/Critical [RQ-RULES] Game System Basic Outline [RQ-RULES] category modifiers RE: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Combat skill mechanics [RQ-RULES] Game complexity Re: [RQ-RULES] Special/Critical [RQ-RULES] What to drop? [RQ-RULES] Skill difficulties. Re: [RQ-RULES] Rules revision and BRP Re: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Designer 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. 4. No anonymous posting, please. Don't say something unless you're ready to stand by it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 19:03:13 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Combat skill mechanics >As to special failures, just take the normal fumble >tables and cut them in half. True, or for the "lite" version, just have "drop weapon" for special failure, and "even: hit self, odd: hit nearest friend" for critical failure. The optional fumble tables could then be made a little more detailed, with each table being 01-100. It does still, however, mean that 5% of misses will be very bad, as against 5% of misses being merely potentially bad in RQ. philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk http://members.tripod.com/~PhilHibbs/ Any view of things that is not strange is false - Neil Gaiman, Sandman *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:44:48 +0100 From: Simon Hibbs Subject: [RQ-RULES] Skill difficulties Al Harrison : >Sorry ... no ... the root/branch system is _totally_ compatible with >existing characters. I see - so categories become root skills. Are you familiar with Ringworld, which had a root/branch skills system. I liked it, but found it counterintuitive for many players. I'm sorry, but I don't see where the big advantage is over a simpler system. How would you calculate the root skills? Can they be increased? If you get very good at one branch skill can that improve the root, so that for example a gymnast can become generaly better at other athletic skills simply by being a better Gymnast? Can you make this feedback mechanism simple to use? Ease of use and intuitiveness are my joint number one criteria in game design. I want to be able to sit down with people I don't know, generate characters from scratch in 30 minutes, including introducing them to the game background and outlining the rules of play, and start playing. If I can't do that I'm not interested. For me, the game is the thing, the rules are merely an enabling mechanism for me to run campaigns and scenarios. They have no intrinsic value beyond that. Simple mechanics do not make it harder to run games, so long as they are intuitive and vaguely relistic, they make it eassier. So long as the player's can't say "Hang on, why can't I do so-and-so?" or "But that couldn't happen!" then I'm happy. Complex mechanics put people off the game in the first place, make character generation into a maths lessson and make it hard to write up NPCs. They also generate interminable mid-game rules problems and generaly make my life hell - or used to at any rate. Not any more. Simon Hibbs *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:18:10 +0100 From: Simon Hibbs Subject: [RQ-RULES] Special/Critical Alain : > What about this simpler method of calculation with only special > success and critical failure : > > Any double under the skill is a special success (11, 22, 33, 44, 55, > 66 and 77 for a 80% skilled character), while above the skill is a > critical failure (88, 99 and 00 for the same character) ? I swear blind I sent in my version of this before reading your post, but fair do's you beat me to publication ;) This method has the ditinct disadvantage that is makes fumbles more likely than criticals. If you have a 13% chance of failiure (skill of 87%) you have a 3% chance of fumbling. To get a 3% chance of criticaling, you have to have a 33% skill level. > In addition, you can add a critical success if the roll is exactly > equal to the skill of the character (80% in the above example). Hmmm..... that could work. > ........and because it is not clear (in the rules, or following many >discussions on this list) how to deal with magical protection and >enchantment. Sorry, I'm new here. What's not clear in the rules? We are talking RQ3 here? Simon Hibbs *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:48:11 +0100 From: Simon Hibbs Subject: [RQ-RULES] Game System Basic Outline I've been playing with BRP mechanics for over 15 years. Here a synopsis of my prefferences for a new core BRP style game system. - ------------------------ Characteristics : Strength, Constitution, Size, Inteligence, Dexterity, Perception, Psyche, Appearance. These are rolled on 2D6+3. [Why?] BRP is crying out for a Perception attribute and I just like the name Psyche (PSY). 2D6+3 gives a range from 5 to 15 with an average of exactly 10. This gives more of a range below human average for squitty non-humans and gives a saving throw range from 25% to 75%, again with more of a range above human average for uber non-humans, without them being over 100% necesserily. Skills : A list of 20 to 30 skills with brief descriptions. Base percentages are combinations of attributes, so base percentage in Climb might be (STR+DEX)x2%, base in Fast Talk might be (INT+PSY)% or whatever. [Why?} It means every character will be unique, which is good, without having headache-inducing category modifier calculations. Personaly I'd be as happy with fixed percentages because it's easier, but it's no big deal. Combat Sequence : Initiative is based on Dexterity for hand to hand combat and melee, but Perception for spell casting and missile fire. The character with the higher relevent attribute goes first. Second attacks if you're splitting a skill over 100% go in 5 ranks after the first. Readying a weapon takes 5 ranks. I'd rather have a single skill for each weapon type rather than seperate attack and parry skills. [Why?] I love the Elric combat system, it's dynamic, fluid and stylish. It also scales well over 100%, though I'm sure it would work fine at normal RQ skill levels too. I've only given a minimal outline here, but this is the most complex part of game design. Combat Damage : Power is the average of STR and SIZ, while Toughness is the average of CON and SIZ. In hand to hand combat, when you hit you roll your Power versus the target's Toughness on the resistance table. The amount you beat him by (if you do) gives you the seriousness of the wound. In melee, weapons add to Power and armour adds to Toughness. Specials and criticals give you bonuses on your Power, while parries and the weapon's defence points to your Toughness. [Why?] See - I do use Power, but for something else. Damage is now made on a single roll, using a mechanic everyone knows - the resistance table. Neat eh? Totaly new, but still very BRP and it does away with Hit Point book keeping. I use this in my Star Trek game. - ----------------- Ok, that's an outline. It's different enough to avoid copyright issues, while keeping the BRP flavour. You still have characteristics, saving throws, the resistance table and percentage skills. I realy hate Hit Points, what is a hit point? What does it represent? (I know - rhetorical question). Instead you just have a few lines for people to note down wounds and their severities. You can even have a hit location table for serious wound effects, but _please_ no messy 'hit point and armour point by location' calculations. I know this is a pretty radical programme of innovations, but I have actualy playtested almost all the ideas above at one time or another. I haven't used them all at the same time though. I also realise that this is largely my own baby and not what BFRP is supposed to be about. If I do it, I'll realy want to do it my way, though from experience I know that if I do it collaboratively with other people it will be much the better for it. I'm stubbourn and opinionated, but what can I do? That's me! Any comments, especialy critical ones, accepted in good humour. Simon Hibbs *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:25:40 +0100 From: Simon Hibbs Subject: [RQ-RULES] category modifiers Phil says : >Skill categories may not be realistic, but they *seem* realistic, which is >equally important - my strong, agile, but thick warrior is good at >fighting, climbing and swimming, but not so good at magic, knowledge >and communication. That's fair, but I don't think horrible skill category modifier calculations are the way to go. >Stat Bonus > 1-4 -10 > 5-9 -5 > 10-14 0 > 15-19 +5 > 20-24 +10 >each +5 +5 Ach, *spit*, tables - blech.... How about keeping the categories, but not claculating anything. You get +15% in one category, +10% in another, +5% in another, +0% in two and - -5% in the last. You choose. Simon Hibbs *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:09:04 +0100 From: Simon Hibbs Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Combat skill mechanics Phil says : >>Well the system I have been using for a long, long time is >>to collapse the difference between specials and criticals >>and to make critical equal to 1/10 of your skill chance. > >That's quite neat, I like it. That could be extended so that on >a 01 you get two of the options, defaulting to double damage >ignoring physical armour. How about having special resuls when you roll doubles - 11, 22, 33, 44, 55, etc. Doubles double damage. Unless you failed the roll of course, in which case you're in Double Trouble! Simon Hibbs *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:06:45 +0100 From: Simon Hibbs Subject: [RQ-RULES] Game complexity Bob Stancliff : >>RQ3 was a complex, monster of a game and that's one of >>the reasons it faded away. You can't turn the tide of >>history. > > Sure you can, by gaining followers at the grass roots >and spreading. I can't see that happening. People nowadays are used to nice simple games with easy to use mechanics. The era of RQ3, Rolemaster and Chivalry and Sorcery is over. The only reason RQ3 did ok in Britain was due to Glorantha, and even then a lot of people stayed with RQ2, or played Pendragon Pass, or Bodgers, or Elric/RQ as I did instead. > By the way, D&D was a complex monster of a game, >and did OK until the second (or third?) rewrite. Hardly a fair comparison, as (A)D&D had a massive head start in the roleplaying market and even now is synonymous with roleplaying for many outside the hobby. Anyway, AD&D is realy not that complex to play. Character generation is very streightforward and combat is about as simple as you can get - one roll to hit, one roll to damage and an absolute minimum of numeric calculations. Using THAC0s you don't even need a combat table. All the complicated stuff is optional and character specific, or is only a problem for the DM, but then how difficult is it to run a dungeon crawl? Simon Hibbs *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:38:42 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Special/Critical > Do we want to stick to special/critical/fumble as they are defined in > RQ ? > If we want this system to apply to Elric too, it may not be necessary > to keep all that. Only a 10% chance of good success? > Further more, the calculations are not obvious ! Even after many years > of RQing, I prefer sometimes to look at the table to be sure that the > result is a fumble (for low skills at least) ! You need to work out systems for doing the numbers in your head. Take 10% of your skill, double it for the special, halve it for the critical, and then round off. This gives you 5% and 20%. Do the same thing for the failure amount to get failure specials. The failure amount is 100 - skill, and the result has to be subtracted from 101% to get the final result. Criticals were one of those rules that slow the game but provide a lot of variety. > What about this simpler method of calculation with only special > success and critical failure : > Any double under the skill is a special success (11, 22, 33, 44, 55, > 66 and 77 for a 80% skilled character), while above the skill is a > critical failure (88, 99 and 00 for the same character) ? This would only be a reasonably accurate 10% if 00 was a success instead of a failure, but I prefer a few more levels for variety. Bob Stancliff (stanclif@ufl.edu) http://commnections.com/upgrades *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:45:59 -0400 (EDT) From: bjm10@cornell.edu Subject: [RQ-RULES] What to drop? The easiest way to answer "what to drop" is to say what I dropped back when I did run RQ3: 1: Fatigue (but I added the RQ:AiG "fatigue roll" when it came 'round). 2: Rolling for "spirit magic" casting success if it came from your cult. (Only roll for fumble.) Everything else I pretty much used. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:50:54 -0400 (EDT) From: bjm10@cornell.edu Subject: [RQ-RULES] Skill difficulties. First, given the BRP experience method, "difficulty" is already partially inherent in the defaults. It's a matter of simple math to demonstrate that greatest overall gain vs. use is when the skill is at 50%, and drops off when it is further from this. Very simple: Chance of Improving via skill check=(chance of rolling under skill)*(chance of rolling over skill)--with the bonus of the "category modifier" in each case. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:55:20 GMT From: mikec@room3b.demon.co.uk (Michael Cule) Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Rules revision and BRP In message <01BDF85C.0DFB61E0@int.ifb.pt> Sergio Mascarenhas writes: > It may be interesting for you to know that Chaosium has a bizarre politic > concerning BRP: they stoped developing new games based on it... in English. > Yet, they allowed Casus Belli (a French RPG magazine) to edit a new version > of BRP called Basic in French. CB is editing gamewords for Basic. So, if > you read French, you can access BRP 98 quite easely. > Try asking Chaosium if, given they accept new editions of BRP in French, > they could license you BRP so you could edit it in English for non > Gloranthan game worlds. You could even see what people at CB are doing in > that context. This is the first suggestion I've heard that makes commercial sense. I still say that you're going to need Chaosium's permission to do anything with a RQ-like system or risk the mother and father of all law suits to decide the status in law of a role-playing system. Let me add I think that a simplification and modularisation of BRP/RQ is definitely the way to go. If we could release BRP-Lite for free as SJG have with GURPS-Lite it would be the sanest way of making our new/old system one of the standards for role-gaming. - -- Michael Cule Actor And Genius AKA Theophilus Prince Archbishop Of The Far Isles Medieval Society Arms Purpure An Open Book Proper: On the Dexter Page an Alpha Or On the Sinister an Omega Or. Motto Nulla Spes Sit in Resistendo (Resistance is Useless). Ask me about the Far Isles: Better Living through Pan-Medieval Anachronisms. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 16:46:19 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Designer > I really don't see the need for lore skills for different countries, there > isn't a Regional Lore skill in RQ, why add one with all this complexity? This isn't complex, you imagine it is. By your argument we should say that there is only one Speak Language skill... the referee will adjudicate all disagreements regarding which language is being spoken. Your game rules will be very simple... "The referee will tell his story any way he sees fit, oh yeah, you can roll some dice if you want." Multiple skills of a similar nature exist to differentiate exactly these groupings of knowledge or ability. There are different Ride skills for each type animal or there is only one Ride skill. There are different Lores for different regions or there is only World Lore. There are different Smithing skills for different metals or there is only one Metal Smithing skill. There are different Speak and Write skills for each language or there is only one Communicate skill. While some of these such as Smithing could be combined to simplify game play, most of them add uniqueness to the characters by itemizing their strengths and weaknesses (or cultural tunnel vision). RQ3: Book 1 discusses skills and recommends this kind of specialization in several skill groups including Lores. It is not a new thing and RQ4 was adding even more skills, just as you are adding even more spells... "Who needs all of those weapon boosting spells... Bladesharp and Fireblade is one too many". My system bridges the gap between too much detail and too little. It implies several parent skills, but they only need to be listed if a player starts to train them above the related skill base. We absolutely need related skill conversions so that related skills don't start at base. A clear set of difficulty modifiers such as I suggested last month is highly desirable, concise, and applies to all skills. > the Sable-stealing crops up in a game, I'd leave it as a referee's call as > to whether the character can work out how to ride a different animal. I > don't see the need to write rules for it, unless it can be something really > simple, like "A special success allows the character to use his skill in > another environment, such as riding a different kind of animal, or using a > different kind of weapon". Likewise the language rules for base chances in > related languages, too much complexity for too little fun. > philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk Related or supporting skills are appropriate because they assign a value to inferred knowledge. If you know something about one subject, you should be able to apply some of it to another, similar subject. Requiring special success is, in most cases, stingy or harsh. Bob Stancliff (stanclif@ufl.edu) http://commnections.com/upgrades *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V1 #181 ************************************* *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. RuneQuest is a Trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. 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.