> I agree with AB? about the problem with super RQ mechanics is the
>whole system rapidly disintergrates into Onslaughtian biting contests
>much above 100%. As mentioned earlier I use a very simple mechanic for
>my Gloranthan roleplaying which is based around a double open-endded
>d10 roll. This is (I think) similar to the Vampire mechanics (advocated
>by AB) and stops the total dominance by people over 100%.
I believe you are using the term "open-ended" differently. You are, I assume, proposing to keep rolling the d10 each time a ten comes up. In Vampire, you roll a number of d10 equal to your skill rating.
>simplified mechanics (opposed open-endded d10 rolls) produces a faster
>game without losing much of the RQ feel. The open-endded mechanic
>stops really gross characters from feeling too secure.
If I am interpreting things correctly, in your system, there is a minute chance that a high-level character will get hosed by a trollkin open-ending a couple times. In my opinion, this type of varience does not really help role-playing. It results in characters dying during trivial battles, rather than during the climactic battle you have spent weeks building up to.
Agreed that long combats tend to get boring though. I am toying with using an improvised system myself. But given that the people I play with have rules-fetishes, I will probably be making secret dice rolls (and ignoring the results) to keep them fooled.
Here's some belated responses to earlier remarks on HQ:
"Selfish" heroes: some claim that "selfish" heroes such as Harrek will be forgotten, because they do not share the power gained from their quests with their people. If that were true, why do humans still remember Arkat? (He did teach sorcery to the Trolls, but presumably, he didn't lose personal use of Sorcery because of this)
There was some concern, as how to convince us power gamers to stop playing "selfish" heroes. Some solutions:
Powered by hypermail