From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #115 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 Monday, October 1 2001 Volume 04 : Number 115 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. [RQ-RULES] High Percentages [RQ-RULES] Success "cancelling" Re: [RQ-RULES] Success "cancelling" Re: [RQ-RULES] Success "cancelling" Re: [RQ-RULES] Success "cancelling" Re: [RQ-RULES] Success "cancelling" Re: [RQ-RULES] Success "cancelling" 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: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 19:18:23 -0600 From: Stephen Posey Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. As promised here's a quickie analysis of Ringworld's trans-100% skill related rules. While terse, I think this should be understandable, LMK if you have questions. Stephen Posey slposey@concentric.net Ringworld Trans-100% Skills Synopsys ==================================== 1) Special Successes and Special Failures Specials are calculated relative to skill % even for trans-100% skills Special Success = Skill% / 5 (round up) So, anyone with skill 491%+ ALWAYS gets a special success on any roll except 00 (see below) Skill Failure Special Failure - -------------------------------------------- 01-95 Roll over skill % Chance of failure / 20 (round up) 96-600 96-00 00 601-700 97-00 00 701-800 98-00 00 801-900 99-00 00 901+ 00 00 E.g. character with skill of 30% has (100-30) = 70%/20 = 3.5% round up to 4% chance of a special failure, so they'd "fumble" on a roll of 97-00 Note: 00 is ALWAYS a special failure. 2) In Ringworld terms, trans-100% skills can result in monetary remuneration. 3) Skill vs. Skill: subtract the percentile of the passive or resisting skill from the active skill percentage. (while this doesn't mention trans-100% in particular, I thought I'd mention it being part of the RW rules since the idea has been discussed in elsewhere in the thread) 4) Skills can be increased by Experience, Training, and Research * Training cannot raise skills past 100% * Experience for for skills < 100%-INT roll over skill to succeed , after roll under INT% * Experience roll success minimum is INT% regardless of skill level * During Research the character will have to make skill rolls, and receives normal experience checks for these 5) Combat Dodge Skill = (3xDEX)% Dodging takes one impulse, during which no other action (including parrying) may be attempted unless the character's skill in the other action is > 100% in which case the other action may be attempted at a 100% penalty. *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 09:57:03 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. Having run a game with very high combat percentages, a couple of comments. MurfNMurf : > 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!) In the SuperRuneQuest model for HQ, it's actually a possibility. Basically, assume that any normally impossible task can be attempted with a -100% modifier. OTOH, this doesn't really happen in combat (except I suppose in ranged combat - viz. Robin-Hood-type impossible shots). > 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 :) Yes, and I found that once you're past the 100 - 150% range, combat speeds up again anyway : because of the ever-increasing chances for special and critical success. In the 200 - 300 % range (which is the highest I ever played) slowness of combat resolution is hardly ever a problem. _________________ Andrew : > 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. Right. FWIW, I don't believe that high % are related to each other in that way. IMG I played it that someone in the 101 - 200 % range can fight like two men ; someone in the 201 - 300 % range can fight like three ; etc. I found game balance not by simply adding bigger, %ier, grosser, more SuperRQer opponents ; but by having the PCs go up against larger groups, leading to a Heroes vs. Armies situation. Of course, I have some mass combat rules for RQ, otherwise the option would be unplayable. __________________ Rich : > My personal opinion: 100 should be the maximum attainable, no exceptions, If you want a *realistic* game, then yes that is true. If so, you should also get rid of skill category bonuses. BRP works *much* better as a realistic game system IMO. Julian Lord *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 10:13:58 +0100 From: "Tom Zunder" Subject: [RQ-RULES] High Percentages I like high skill percentages, I use the Elric! rules where the effect is to just keep escalating specials and criticals (altho they're called summat different) and then compare the two outcomes. Once compared it is the level of difference that matters. It's just like Steve's SPQR rules, altho his rules add another level of granularity. When 2 characters with 200% attack each other, it's not the success roll they are looking for, they'll both get those and cancel out, it's the specials and criticals that will win the contest, and then you're back at the 40% mark. If a 200% character faces off a 75% character, then the higher skilled character has the advantage that a success is always in the bag (well except on a 00 in Elric! or 95-00 in RQ) and that that will always hold at bay the lower skilled character who then has to worry about the ability to land a blow begore hoping for specials and crits. Hero Wars uses a similar mechnic with masteries representing skill blocks of 20 and used to 'bump' a fumble to a failure, a success to critical etc. In HW if you both have 10W (10 and 1 mastery, or 30 on a d20 or 150% in percentile) then you just cancel out the mastery. It becomes a skill of 10 (50% on d100). So, we could run with the Elric! or SPQR system, which does allow confident and demigod like mastery of skills (good, scaleable). Or we could use the HW mechanic and simply say that for every 100% you have you may bump the result up from fumble-failure-success-special-critical. This is automatically done. If both characters have blocks of 100% then they cancel out. So Beowulf with 250% broadsword fights Grendel with 150% claw. Grendel and Beowulf both have 1 block of 100% each which is cancelled, leaving Grendel with 50% Claw, Beowulf with 150% broadsword, which we either leave as meaning much higher chances of specials-criticals or successes in SPQR, or we say that Beowul can 'bump' any result up one level automatically after die are thrown. I find just letting the skills stand and the specials sort it out just fine, but the others have merit. I do not agree with forcing the game into the 1-100 range. Quite simply, most of us are so skilled at many things that we should be able to do them every time, without fail, not even with a 1% or 5% failure rate. An archaic blacksmith, minstrel or warrior should be the same. A warrior of a few years could well be expected to be 100% with a skill. If he faces off another 100% warrior then it is the 40% chance of a special that will decide the battle. - --- T H Zunder tom@zunder.org.uk ICQ:1521799 *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 08:05:30 -0700 From: "Andrew O. Mellinger" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Success "cancelling" Y'all, So I've been thinking about the skill cancelling idea and there's one thing I don't like about. That 1 vs 1 cancels. Why you say? Back when I started playing RQ in '85 (RQ3) I thought it was cool that the guy could hit me, and the damage could be absorbed by my shield. In fact the guy could special, and if I had a big enough, strong enough shield, then I could block most of the damege. That made shield *really* cool. Not this -1 AC stuff I was used to. I started doing cancelling successes with dodge, because a special hit being dodge by a normal dodge, didn't make sense. (Since dodge are a digital thing. Ya do or ya don't.) So then even though dodge were cool (zero damage even from that big giant) shield were cool too, because a normal shield parry did have some chance of saving your a** against a special hit. It all seemed to balance out nicely. Sometimes you wanted dodge, and sometimes a shield. But with the cancelling successes, weapons and shield no longer have AP that blocks. (Which I always thought was pretty nifty too.) So if that giant hits with a normal success against a blocking dagger, all the damage is blocked. (!?) I have fond memories of sitting around the gaming table with a gming the troll hitting the characters. He'd hit one a good solid blow in the kite shield and knock the guy back but the character would take no damage. Then the character would come back and brace and the troll would wind up a special, a few points would get through and there would be knockback again. The shield would be a little weaker every time. I always remember in Ivanhoe how the guys were carry lumps of twisted metal by the end of the combat instead of shields. How does everyone else feel about this? - -Andrew - -- *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 09:24:07 -0600 From: "Stephen Posey [TurboPower Software]" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Success "cancelling" "Andrew O. Mellinger" wrote: > > Y'all, > > So I've been thinking about the skill cancelling idea and there's one > thing I don't like about. That 1 vs 1 cancels. > > Why you say? I like your descriptions, but I'm unclear about the mechanic you're recommending; what do you mean by "1 vs 1 cancels"? Can you elaborate further please? 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: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 08:39:47 -0700 From: "Andrew O. Mellinger" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Success "cancelling" >"Andrew O. Mellinger" wrote: >> >> Y'all, >> >> So I've been thinking about the skill cancelling idea and there's one >> thing I don't like about. That 1 vs 1 cancels. >> >> Why you say? > > > >I like your descriptions, but I'm unclear about the mechanic you're >recommending; what do you mean by "1 vs 1 cancels"? > >Can you elaborate further please? I'll try. In most "success canceling" (SPQR) and Elric (I think) the attacker needs to acheive a positive number of success. So if an attacker has 1 success, and the defender has 1 success, then the attacker "misses" the defender. (Regardless of defense type.) If the attacker has 2 successes and the defender 1, then the attacker has a net 1 success on the defender. The attacker would then roll normal damage against an undefended foe. Does this make sense? - -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: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 08:47:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Leon Kirshtein Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Success "cancelling" > I started doing cancelling successes with dodge, > because a special > hit being dodge by a normal dodge, didn't make > sense. (Since dodge > are a digital thing. Ya do or ya don't.) So then > even though dodge > were cool (zero damage even from that big giant) > shield were cool > too, because a normal shield parry did have some > chance of saving > your a** against a special hit. >shield no longer have > AP that blocks. (Which I always thought was pretty > nifty too.) I did the same thing for shafted weapons vs shafted weapons as well. So someone who is fighting with spear vs spear would use a cancelling effect instead of damage absorption. > So if that giant hits with a normal success against a > blocking dagger, all the damage is blocked. (!?) This is exactly the problem as I see it as well. As for high percentages, the only time it seems to slow the combat is then the amount of damage is relatively small vs the armor of the opponents, and even in this case the criticals will swing the fight one way or the other fairly quickly. As a side question how are people ruling on weapons getting stuck in armor, shields, and opponents bodies? Leon ===== "No good deed shall go unpunished." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone. http://phone.yahoo.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: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 09:54:48 -0600 From: "Stephen Posey [TurboPower Software]" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Success "cancelling" "Andrew O. Mellinger" wrote: > > >"Andrew O. Mellinger" wrote: > >> > >> Y'all, > >> > >> So I've been thinking about the skill cancelling idea and there's one > >> thing I don't like about. That 1 vs 1 cancels. > >> > >> Why you say? > > > > > > > >I like your descriptions, but I'm unclear about the mechanic you're > >recommending; what do you mean by "1 vs 1 cancels"? > > > >Can you elaborate further please? > > I'll try. > > In most "success canceling" (SPQR) and Elric (I think) the > attacker needs to acheive a positive number of success. > > So if an attacker has 1 success, and the defender has 1 success, > then the attacker "misses" the defender. (Regardless of defense > type.) > > If the attacker has 2 successes and the defender 1, then the > attacker has a net 1 success on the defender. The attacker would > then roll normal damage against an undefended foe. > > Does this make sense? Yes, much better, though I was just browsing through the Elric! (actually Stormbringer 5e) rules last night and I don't recall seeing a "success" rule like you mention. I think "success levels" like that is Steve P's invention for SPQR actually. 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: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 09:36:28 -0700 From: "Andrew O. Mellinger" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Success "cancelling" > > In most "success canceling" (SPQR) and Elric (I think) the >> attacker needs to acheive a positive number of success. >> >> So if an attacker has 1 success, and the defender has 1 success, >> then the attacker "misses" the defender. (Regardless of defense >> type.) >> >> If the attacker has 2 successes and the defender 1, then the >> attacker has a net 1 success on the defender. The attacker would >> then roll normal damage against an undefended foe. >> >> Does this make sense? > >Yes, much better, though I was just browsing through the Elric! >(actually Stormbringer 5e) rules last night and I don't recall seeing a >"success" rule like you mention. > >I think "success levels" like that is Steve P's invention for SPQR >actually. I was remember hearing someone mention that Elric! did it the same way, so I included the reference. I haven't read it myself. AFAIK SPQR is the first "published" source for success cancelling in a percentile system. I've been doing it myself (and most RQ'ers I think) at least for dodges for as long as I can remember. It seems an intuitive solution for mutile success dodges and hits. But then again I probably got the idea from Shadowrun, which is all based on number of successes. A lot of other games do that now as well. (Any opposed success system.) - -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. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #115 ************************************* *************************************************************************** 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.