From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #116 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 Tuesday, October 2 2001 Volume 04 : Number 116 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] Success "cancelling" Re: [RQ-RULES] Success "cancelling" Re: [RQ-RULES] Success "cancelling" Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. Re: [RQ-RULES] Success "cancelling" Re: [RQ-RULES] High Percentages Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. Re: [RQ-RULES] Success "cancelling" 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: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 10:48:43 -0700 From: "Steve Perrin" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Success "cancelling" Shadowrun is certainly a good place to get it. I got the concept from the White Wolf games, actually, but it's the same thing. I then found out that Dave Nalle's "Ouroborus" system uses a similar, and even more granular, system based on D100. But that seems to have died, or faded into obscurity. So far SPQR is still trying to dig out of obscurity. Have I mentioned that AlterEgo Software will be publishing a SPQR Creator for easy character building? I've seen the Alpha, it looks pretty good. The programmer, Bruce Kwam, is also giving me enough feedback to make everything work a lot better. Steve Perrin - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew O. Mellinger" To: Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 9:36 AM 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. *************************************************************************** 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 11:09:07 -0700 From: "Andrew O. Mellinger" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Success "cancelling" >Shadowrun is certainly a good place to get it. I got the concept from the >White Wolf games, actually, but it's the same thing. Despite it's many many flaws there's lot of good things to steal from SR. It seems to be mix of gems and crap. - -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 16:44:42 -0700 From: "Steve Perrin" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Success "cancelling" See below for message and responses - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leon Kirshtein" To: Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 8:47 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Success "cancelling" > > > 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. So you are saying that the dagger should be damaged? Why? The giant would be hitting with such force that he might well drive the intact dagger through the target. Instead, I think of the process as using the dagger as part of an avoidance of the blow. It may not involve the dagger at all, it may just be a maneuver that is used while in parrying mode with a dagger in your hand. I stopped giving shields and weapons armor values because they fell apart too soon. Yes shields and weapons get chopped up in a fight, but no where nearly as quickly as they do under the old RQ rules. I could have instituted a "loses one point of armor every time penetrated" rule, but the bookkeeping looked to be onerous in an already bookkeeping heavy game. So I dropped the concept. Weapons and the like still have AP, but only because someone might actually want to destroy the object itself. Attack the object, exceed the AP, and the object is smashed. > 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? Again, this became too much detail for me to keep track of. > Leon > > ===== > "No good deed shall go unpunished." If you insist Steve Perrin *************************************************************************** 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: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 10:00:08 +1000 From: Robert McArthur Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. Stephen Posey wrote: ... > 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 Reading the above just made me wonder why skills around and over 100% are penalised re:getting there and learning them. Really, we know (IMG,IMHO) that 100% doesn't mean "reach the peak of what is possible" - a more statistics-type idea. After all, there seems to be no mechanic nor reason how and why gods assist rune lords to get above 100%. I suggest that, like that other game HW (:-), 100% isn't treated, per se, as anything particularly special except in the following case - there probably should be some set criteria for rune level (or equiv) that is, at least partly, based on skills. I must admit I'm also all for criteria being upto the GM and based on role playing and doing what your god did (or would do were they around). For training, everyone should be able to train someone of lower ability - we see this and experience it everyday: most people I learn something from (officially learn that is) probably aren't 90%+ in that particular skill. But there are quite a bit higher than I am in the skill. So, based on the "you can always learn more" rather than "it's easier to learn when you know little", remove the cap. You "learn" by making a, say, x2 roll and you go up 5% (for old runequesters) or 1d4+1 for RQ3ers. The stat you roll against should be relevant to that skill rather than simply INT: someone trying to learn from climbing may benefit by rolling (STR+DEX)/2 x 2 since climbing is related to both STR and DEX. I can also see some good reasons why maybe INT should be in every roll in some way - maybe add half your INT or something, while remove the x2 multiplier? Anyway, this would totally remove the other half of the equation which is to base it on your current %. Training should be conducted by someone at least 1.25x your skill level, minimum 20% (40% versus your 20%, 125% versus your 100%, 1000% versus your 800%, etc.). I'd be happy to keep the 90% barrier for rune level, weapons master, etc. I think there are few enough chance for people to get to that level unless they are professionals or do some training. I think the relative numbers of people at different levels of skill in the Gloranthan society shouldn't change much - there shouldn't be many people who can take on a rune lord in combat and come out without a scratch! Really (and this is getting too long!), it's all about whether to have a maximum (100%) or not. Runequest had a foot in each court saying you could (RQ2 runelord) go above 100% in special circumstances but without explaining mechanics or reasons. IMHO this became silly when giving very high % for people/heroes/ monsters that made no sense - as asked, what's the real diff between 210% and 280%? One answer is to try and come up with such a difference. Another (presented above) is to remove the idea of a maximum - per se. Of course, there's only going to be a few heroes up at the high % - just as there has always been... rambling Robert *************************************************************************** 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 17:01:55 -0700 From: "Andrew O. Mellinger" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Success "cancelling" > > > 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. > >So you are saying that the dagger should be damaged? Why? The giant would be >hitting with such force that he might well drive the intact dagger through >the target. Instead, I think of the process as using the dagger as part of >an avoidance of the blow. It may not involve the dagger at all, it may just >be a maneuver that is used while in parrying mode with a dagger in your >hand. Actually in my initial post this had nothing to do with damaging the dagger. But more of how is a dagger going to parry a giant's tree-trunk. Or, for less of an exaggeration, a Troll's Trol Maul? I suppose if it is all about some specialized maneuver then it should be classified as a dodge than a parry? In my martial arts experience (which isn't phalanx or line fighting stand and parry kind of stuff) parry and dodge were really hard to separate anyway. - -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: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 10:03:55 +1000 From: Robert McArthur Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] High Percentages Tom Zunder wrote: ... > 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. Shows I should read all replies before opening my mouth - Tom's said what I think much better than I did :-) BTW: 'special' can be read as 'knew a strange maneauver', not just 'got lucky on the day' Robert *************************************************************************** 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 17:22:40 +0000 (/etc/localtime) From: Brian Newman Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Robert McArthur wrote: > So, based on the "you can always learn more" rather than "it's > easier to learn when you know little", remove the cap. You > "learn" by making a, say, x2 roll and > you go up 5% (for old runequesters) or 1d4+1 for RQ3ers. The > stat you roll against should be relevant to that skill rather > than simply INT: someone trying to learn from climbing may > benefit by rolling (STR+DEX)/2 x 2 since climbing is related > to both STR and DEX. I can also see some good reasons why maybe > INT should be in every roll in some way - maybe add half your > INT or something, while remove the x2 multiplier? Anyway, this > would totally remove the other > half of the equation which is to base it on your current %. The original idea, I believe, was that the more you know about something, the less there is for you to learn, and the harder it is to find a hands-on event that really teaches you something. Your system kind of does away with that... I don't know if that was on purpose or not. Shade and sweet water, Blackberry - - - - - - "Short answer: yes, with an if... long answer: no, with a but." -- Rev. Lovejoy *************************************************************************** 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 17:30:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Leon Kirshtein Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Success "cancelling" > > > 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. > > So you are saying that the dagger should be damaged? > Why? The giant would be > hitting with such force that he might well drive the > intact dagger through > the target. Instead, I think of the process as using > the dagger as part of > an avoidance of the blow. It may not involve the > dagger at all, it may just > be a maneuver that is used while in parrying mode > with a dagger in your > hand. What I am saying is that a dagger could not be used to effectively parry such a blow. Any protection you get would be miniscule. As for using a dagger as part of a maneuver, well thats what dodge is for. If the character is dodging than call it dodging. > I stopped giving shields and weapons armor values > because they fell apart too soon. And that is the equalizer then characters have very high skills. It also forces characters to become more balanced in their skills and make sure they take care of their equipment. I always hated the idea in D&D that weapons would never get damaged in combat. A lot of characters what I have seen played make it a point of attacking weapons and shields just to achieve an advantage over an opponent quickly. > Yes shields and weapons get chopped up in > a fight, but no where > nearly as quickly as they do under the old RQ rules. Maybe not, but as a gaming mechanic it is one of the better ones, IMO ofcourse. > > I could have instituted a "loses one point of armor > every time penetrated" > rule, but the bookkeeping looked to be onerous in an > already bookkeeping heavy game. So I dropped the > concept. That is your perogative I do not think that it is such a big deal. > > Weapons and the like still have AP, but only because > someone might actually > want to destroy the object itself. Attack the > object, exceed the AP, and the object is smashed. So there is no degration over time, it is all or nothing deal. If it works for you go for it. > > 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? > > Again, this became too much detail for me to keep > track of. Again a matter of gaming style. > > > Leon > > > > ===== > > "No good deed shall go unpunished." > > If you insist > > Steve Perrin No, just a statement of fact. Leon Kirshtein ===== "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: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 12:29:00 +0800 From: Jeremy Martin Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] High percentages in combat. Now to add my $0.02... IMC, I let the initial person pick the penalty if they are over 75%, in 5% increments, and it applies to both people. So if we're both at 75% and I'm attacking, I can give you a -25% chance to parry by taking a -25% to my attack. Usually this works more often with me at 125% and you at 75%. Rather than getting through less than 1 time in 4 (my 5% auto-miss), I'll take a -30% penalty and still hit 95% of the time, but you only have a 45% to parry. Or I'm fighting you and a buddy, so I take a -50% and only have a 75% to hit, but I'm pretty sure you won't parry and then I only have 1 opponent to deal with (hopefully)... I see this as a swordsmaster beguiling his opponent - maybe swinging at the head and at the last second, with a flick of the wrist, changing the angle or swing style. I'm not sure how realistic this is, but I feel that a master would be swinging with enough skill, speed and accuracy that a novice or intermediate fighter would have trouble blocking. Since the attacker also gets the penalties, this does cut down on the number of specials or criticals he gets. I also use this for other skills, so, for example, our local locksmith with 110% usually builds locks with a -25% chance to open, making them worth more money (though he wastes a few) and really annoying the local thieves... This has worked pretty well so far, though we do have a Berserker with 90% that goes to 180% when he's Berserk. Sometimes I think he's too powerful like this, but the lack of a parry or dodge kind of makes up for it. Thoughts? Jeremy "Andrew O. Mellinger" wrote: > > Y'all, > > I'm probably going to fire up an my flavor of RQ game here pretty > soon. As I was looking over all my old house rules and reviewing > "weakness" I came across one of my old problems. > > What do people do when characters (many) have skills over 100%? > Like when I've got a guy with 130% attacking a guy with 100% parry? > > -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. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #116 ************************************* *************************************************************************** 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.