From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #114 Reply-To: runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Sunday, September 30 2001 Volume 04 : Number 114 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. RE: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. Re: [RQ-RULES] Common Mechanic add to roll not skill Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. 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: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:31:11 EDT From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. - --part1_10f.5ece78c.28e60ddf_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/28/01 11:28:16 AM Central Daylight Time, Andrew comments > the case of "excess subtracts" > > The defender can now stop the blows of the attacker only 70% of the > time. This makes more sene to me, and gives a bigger advantage to > the guy with 130. (Which should be pretty hard to achieve anyway > (except for bladesharp) and he should be allowed such advantage IMO.) > > Well, on reading this and doing a little bit more thinking, I think I know what it is I don't care for with this option. Mainly its the fact that at _very_ high (though not very _likely_ ) skill levels--say around 200% (hey, assuming the character isn't _quite_ this much of a Bad Ass,a few good spells and some modifiers will sometimes allow this sort of thing to happen), the defender would be subtracting a full _100%_ from his chance of successfully defending himself. While this idea _still_ retains some sort of twitchy, powergamer appeal to me, I know _I_ sure wouldn't want a character of mine to be on the _receiving_ end of that kind of treatment...subtract 100% _indeed_ (hmmph!) I think the subtraction thing is just a mechanic to allow the usually overly-lengthy (and often _numbing_ ) combats that usually result from high skills, to essentially be sped up; certainly a lot less dice rolling is bound to happen when you have a 130 vs a 70, as opposed to a contest of 130 vs a 100 :) A little too wonky, in my book :) -Ken- Having decided _not_ to graft this reduction thing onto my RQ3, afterall... - --part1_10f.5ece78c.28e60ddf_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/28/01 11:28:16 AM Central Daylight Time, Andrew comments on
the case of "excess subtracts"

  The defender can now stop the blows of the attacker only 70% of the
time.  This makes more sene to me, and gives a bigger advantage to
the guy with 130.  (Which should be pretty hard to achieve anyway
(except for bladesharp)  and he should be allowed such advantage IMO.)

  


  Well, on reading this and doing a little bit more thinking, I think I know what it is I don't care for with this option.
  Mainly its the fact that at _very_ high (though not very _likely_ ) skill levels--say around 200% (hey, assuming the character isn't _quite_ this much of a Bad Ass,a few good spells and some modifiers will sometimes allow this sort of thing to happen), the defender would be subtracting a full _100%_ from his chance of successfully defending himself. While this idea _still_ retains some sort of twitchy, powergamer appeal to me, I know _I_ sure wouldn't want a character of mine to be on the _receiving_ end of that kind of treatment...subtract 100% _indeed_ (hmmph!)
  I think the subtraction thing is just a mechanic to allow the usually overly-lengthy (and often _numbing_ ) combats that usually result from high skills, to essentially be sped up; certainly a lot less dice rolling is bound to happen when you have a 130 vs a 70, as opposed to a contest of 130 vs a 100 :)   
  A little too wonky, in my book :)
 -Ken-
  Having decided _not_ to graft this reduction thing onto my RQ3, afterall... - --part1_10f.5ece78c.28e60ddf_boundary-- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 10:49:37 -0700 From: "Andrew O. Mellinger" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. >In a message dated 9/28/01 11:28:16 AM Central Daylight Time, Andrew >comments on > >>the case of "excess subtracts" >> >> The defender can now stop the blows of the attacker only 70% of the >>time. This makes more sene to me, and gives a bigger advantage to >>the guy with 130. (Which should be pretty hard to achieve anyway >>(except for bladesharp) and he should be allowed such advantage IMO.) > > Well, on reading this and doing a little bit more thinking, I >think I know what it is I don't care for with this option. > Mainly its the fact that at _very_ high (though not very _likely_ >) skill levels--say around 200% (hey, assuming the character isn't >_quite_ this much of a Bad Ass,a few good spells and some modifiers >will sometimes allow this sort of thing to happen), the defender >would be subtracting a full _100%_ from his chance of successfully >defending himself. But what does 200% mean? What does 100% mean? The problem (as I see it) is that nobody has really defined the reference frame for combat skills. And without a reference frame, a person can figure out how to change something and keep it all relative. Example: (Hopefully not a poor one.) Let's saw we are on on the earth (both standing still) and I throw a ball at you at 20 mph hour. You have to catch a ball moving at 20 mph. Let say we are in a spaceship and both moving at 1,000 miles per hour. I them throw a ball at you and it moves away from me at 20 mph. Do you have to catch a ball at 1020 mph? No, 20 mph. Let's say you have 100% and I have 200%. How are they related? A couple of ways: %wise we both succeed all the time. numerically 2 ways: Mine is 100% greater than yours Mine is twice yours. Let's say you have 700% and I have 800%. How are they related? A couple of ways: [NOTE: I never plan on having to deal with percentages this high. They are here as an exaggeration simply for argument.] %wise we both succeed all the time. numerically 2 ways: Mine is 100% greater than yours Mine is is only 1/7 (of yours) greater than yours. Let's say you have 30% and I have 60%. How are they related? A couple of ways: %wise you succeed 30% of the time %wise you succeed 60% of the time numerically 2 ways: Mine is 30% greater than yours Mine is twice yours. My problem is how to relate all these together. What sort of relationship should we use. Should it be subtraction? Or division (scaling)? If I have 140 and you have 100, should we move to 100% for me and 100/140 for you? (71%) Or should we move to 100 - 40 for you? (60%) I suppose part of that depends on how easily it is to get above 100%. If it is very hard then I'd say do the subtraction. (It provides a bigger benefit.) If it is easy, then I'd say divide, giving less value to those over 100% skills. > While this idea _still_ retains some sort of twitchy, powergamer >appeal to me, I know _I_ sure wouldn't want a character of mine to >be on the _receiving_ end of that kind of treatment...subtract 100% >_indeed_ (hmmph!) I don't either! - -Andrew - -- /*----------------------------------------------------------------- mailto:andrew@crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com -----------------------------------------------------------------*/ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 12:05:45 -0600 From: "Stephen Posey [TurboPower Software]" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. "Andrew O. Mellinger" wrote: > > >In a message dated 9/28/01 11:28:16 AM Central Daylight Time, Andrew > >comments on > > > >>the case of "excess subtracts" > >> > >> The defender can now stop the blows of the attacker only 70% of the > >>time. This makes more sene to me, and gives a bigger advantage to > >>the guy with 130. (Which should be pretty hard to achieve anyway > >>(except for bladesharp) and he should be allowed such advantage IMO.) > > > > Well, on reading this and doing a little bit more thinking, I > >think I know what it is I don't care for with this option. > > Mainly its the fact that at _very_ high (though not very _likely_ > >) skill levels--say around 200% (hey, assuming the character isn't > >_quite_ this much of a Bad Ass,a few good spells and some modifiers > >will sometimes allow this sort of thing to happen), the defender > >would be subtracting a full _100%_ from his chance of successfully > >defending himself. > > But what does 200% mean? What does 100% mean? > > The problem (as I see it) is that nobody has really defined the > reference frame for combat skills. And without a reference frame, a > person can figure out how to change something and keep it all > relative. > My problem is how to relate all these together. What sort of > relationship should we use. Should it be subtraction? Or division > (scaling)? If I have 140 and you have 100, should we move to 100% > for me and 100/140 for you? (71%) Or should we move to 100 - 40 for > you? (60%) > > I suppose part of that depends on how easily it is to get above > 100%. If it is very hard then I'd say do the subtraction. (It > provides a bigger benefit.) If it is easy, then I'd say divide, > giving less value to those over 100% skills. Good analysis of the issues. The Ringworld game has rules for handling very high (multiple hundreds) skill percentages to account for the potential longevity of characters in the Known Space setting (but might also makes sense for long-lived or heroic characters in other settings). IIRC, there are benefits in terms of what constitutes automatic failure as well as various outcome bonuses (mostly for uses of technical and research skills rather than combat per se). I can review these and provide a synopsis for the list if anyone's interested. Stephen Posey slposey@concentric.net *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 11:18:13 -0700 From: "Andrew O. Mellinger" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. >Good analysis of the issues. Thanks! >The Ringworld game has rules for handling >very high (multiple hundreds) skill percentages to account for the >potential longevity of characters in the Known Space setting (but might >also makes sense for long-lived or heroic characters in other settings). I see this happening in any decent heroic RQ campaign as well. (My predicament.) >IIRC, there are benefits in terms of what constitutes automatic failure >as well as various outcome bonuses (mostly for uses of technical and >research skills rather than combat per se). I don't understand what you mean. So if you have a 150% even the 96-00 might yield something? >I can review these and provide a synopsis for the list if anyone's >interested. Oooo! Oooo! Me! I'm interested! - -Andrew - -- /*----------------------------------------------------------------- mailto:andrew@crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com -----------------------------------------------------------------*/ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 12:41:56 -0600 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. > But what does 200% mean? What does 100% mean? My personal opinion: 100 should be the maximum attainable, no exceptions, and it should be MUCH harder to reach than it is now. Bonuses and penalties should still apply, so a result can be higher than the skill level. Nothing need be done for results greater than 100% in my opinion; unless you will commonly have characters that have bonuses over 20%, and never roll under 80 on a d100. Rich Allen *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 12:50:46 -0600 From: "Stephen Posey [TurboPower Software]" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. "Andrew O. Mellinger" wrote: > > >Good analysis of the issues. > > Thanks! > > >The Ringworld game has rules for handling > >very high (multiple hundreds) skill percentages to account for the > >potential longevity of characters in the Known Space setting (but might > >also makes sense for long-lived or heroic characters in other settings). > > I see this happening in any decent heroic RQ campaign as well. (My > predicament.) > > >IIRC, there are benefits in terms of what constitutes automatic failure > >as well as various outcome bonuses (mostly for uses of technical and > >research skills rather than combat per se). > > I don't understand what you mean. So if you have a 150% even the > 96-00 might yield something? No, more something along the lines of normally a roll of 95-00 is an automatic failure; but someone with skill 200%-500% it becomes 96-00, etc. (I don't recall the precise percentages off the top of my head). > >I can review these and provide a synopsis for the list if anyone's > >interested. > Oooo! Oooo! Me! I'm interested! ;-) I should be able to do a write-up over the weekend, stay tuned. Stephen Posey slposey@concentric.net *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 15:01:21 EDT From: AAlanrichards@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Common Mechanic add to roll not skill Hadn't thought of that, but absolutely spot on I reckon *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 17:47:15 EDT From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. - --part1_156.1af36f0.28e649e3_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/28/01 1:17:55 PM Central Daylight Time, Stephen writes: > IIRC, there are benefits in terms of what constitutes automatic failure > as well as various outcome bonuses (mostly for uses of technical and > research skills rather than combat per se). > > I can review these and provide a synopsis for the list if anyone's > interested. > > Bring it on. Not having Ringworld myself, I'd sure be interested in seeing it. I figure others might as well :) -Ken- - --part1_156.1af36f0.28e649e3_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/28/01 1:17:55 PM Central Daylight Time, Stephen writes:


IIRC, there are benefits in terms of what constitutes automatic failure
as well as various outcome bonuses (mostly for uses of technical and
research skills rather than combat per se).

I can review these and provide a synopsis for the list if anyone's
interested.



  Bring it on. Not having Ringworld myself, I'd sure be interested in seeing it. I figure others might as well :)
 -Ken- - --part1_156.1af36f0.28e649e3_boundary-- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 22:35:00 +0100 From: "Meirion Hopkins" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. - ----- Original Message ----- Ken Well, on reading this and doing a little bit more thinking, I think I know what it is I don't care for with this option. Mainly its the fact that at _very_ high (though not very _likely_ ) skill levels--say around 200% (hey, assuming the character isn't _quite_ this much of a Bad Ass,a few good spells and some modifiers will sometimes allow this sort of thing to happen), the defender would be subtracting a full _100%_ from his chance of successfully defending himself. While this idea _still_ retains some sort of twitchy, powergamer appeal to me, I know _I_ sure wouldn't want a character of mine to be on the _receiving_ end of that kind of treatment...subtract 100% _indeed_ (hmmph!) I think the subtraction thing is just a mechanic to allow the usually overly-lengthy (and often _numbing_ ) combats that usually result from high skills, to essentially be sped up; certainly a lot less dice rolling is bound to happen when you have a 130 vs a 70, as opposed to a contest of 130 vs a 100 :) A little too wonky, in my book :) -Ken- Having decided _not_ to graft this reduction thing onto my RQ3, afterall... - -------------------- The one thing to remember about RQ2 was that ONLY Rune Lords could attain skills over 100% - it was a benefit of their status, representing the divine favour of their patron deity. There were therefore a lot less 100%+ characters around. Also, with the defence mechanism, experienced characters could have 30-50% defence, totally negating the benefit of a low to middle 100%+ attacks. By 'eck, in them days Rune Lords were Rune Lords Cheers Meirion *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #114 ************************************* *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.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.