G:tG

From: Saravan Peacock <saravan_at_perth.DIALix.oz.au>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 18:58:21 +0800


Just a few thoughts on possible approaches in gaming design. I haven't played RQ for all that long (though I've owned the RQ 3 box since it first came out...), but I've run and played lots of other stuff.

1>One point about Pendragon's problems with high level combat skills:

I think this 'problem' was allowed to remain because it simulates the incidents in heroic literature which has tough knights slugging it out for hours, because they were so evenly matched in skill, and then resorting to fists and wrestling as that was the only way they could decide the issue. For me, this doesn't really appeal as maximum game fun, though it could be given the right approach. In any case, it doesn't seem to mesh with the superheroes in Glorantha so I won't talk about the various permutations and intricate rulesy factors which occur to me as part of Pendragon's system...

2> What I do like about Pendragon though, is that it is elegant. Sure, if you like the gritty hack and parry, numerous modifiers to damage, armour and hit locations etc. which RQ favours, then Pendragon won't appeal much, but I found that it allows for much freer flowing combats. Several people have commented on this with greatly divergent opinions - ie that elegance equals roll-based and flavourless combat, or that it favours more opportunity for adding in the colour as the players and GM would like to tell it. This is largely a matter of GM style. I have seen parts of both camps and like them both. Sometimes one appeals more than the other... I personally feel that free-flowing open systems like Pendragon (or even D&D without all the optional rule crap put out recently), without extensive defined tables of modifiers and so on, favours GM and player creativity, at least as much as does the RQ detail-heavy combat system. It is not nearly so pleasant to novice GMs however, who may be stuck without the experience to make it interesting and descriptive. (but then I found RQ a daunting game when I first started, because of the amount of detail).

Hmm... that was somewhat confused all round. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think that the detail of RQ inherently conveys more options and descriptiveness to a game. In many ways it constrains it.

3> What I would like to see in G:tG:

A good basis of skill description by 'level' of skill. For instance, rather than just applying falt modifiers to percentile skills, I would like to see a guideline which says, with this 75% skill you can do XXX, and you are generally superior to a person with 50%. The reason is, it would give a more flavourful guideline for what characters know at different skill levels, rather than needing a boring die roll. Used properly it would obviate the need for die rolls in many circumstances. An example is the climbing in Dyskund Caverns in Shadows on the Borderlands: The climb is so dangerous that people with low skill will be fearful of even attempting it - - the GM is encouraged to make things difficult for them so that they will pull out of their own accord. Don't worry about die roll modifiers. They just don't know how to make the climb unless they have an experienced climber with them. If they keep trying they die...

I think there would be a significant degree of difference in many cases of skill application. Eg Crafting has always been a popular one in game examples: a master crafter's ordinary stuff should be a helluva lot better than the special or even critical success of a complete novice with 10 or 20 percent skill. Or maybe each skill is thought about differently - eg maybe the master crafter can produce more works of the same quality given a period of time than a novice who has to spend ages perfecting one item. I don't think this should be reduced to mere luck on the dice.

On the other hand, I don't think this applies to combat. In combat, I think even the puniest peasant should have the chance to land a lucky hit on his skilled oppressor from the knightly classes. In this circumstance I don't like the idea of bell curve probability and others which heavily penalise weaker people. I think 5% (or less in RQ) is a reasonable chance of a lucky hit. It doesn't happen too often to be ridiculous, but it does happen often enough to make it worth hoping for (or fearing about if you are the knightly oppressor). Perhaps the main argument against non-linear based resolution systems is that they are a helluva lot harder to figure out if you don't have a reasonable understanding of probability.I know there are a lot of people in this forum and in RQ in general who have computer and science backgrounds, but there are also a lot who don't (like me) and I do find it a real pain to have to sit down and really wrap my head around a system which does not make intuitive sense to me.(Yes you're right, with enough practice it would become intuitive, but it does take a LOT of practice). The idea above is to simulate some of the wide variance in output at different skill levels without burdening people with tough prabability questions, and as a big bonus, providing a good description of what people with these skills might actually do with them.


Powered by hypermail