From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #11 Reply-To: runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Monday, March 19 2001 Volume 04 : Number 011 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers Re: [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers RE: [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers RE: [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers Re: [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers [RQ-RULES] RuneQuest & DragonQuest (longish) [RQ-RULES] Familiars 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, 16 Mar 2001 09:36:14 +1100 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13:05:03 +0800, Jeremy Martin wrote: >Thus, everything is applied before the division, but you can only divide for a >split attack if your Skill, not including weapon bonuses, is over 100%. Over 99%, strictly speaking. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "And now, the most instantly unappealing character in film history." ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ *************************************************************************** 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, 16 Mar 2001 09:36:15 +1100 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13:36:38 EST, SPerrin@aol.com wrote: >The only question still in my mind (and I wrote the original rules) is >whether the increase in attack %ile given by Fanaticism gives you the >abilitiy to split attacks when it kicks you over 100%. I don't see why not; seems to me to be consistent with the "Fanatic" (and "Berserk" for that matter) "state-of-mind". >Of course, I am still thinking about getting rid of the artificial 100% line. The 100% value may be arbitrary, but I think some sort of dividing line between the elite and the unwashed masses is important. Consider the case of one person with 80% skill fighting someone with 40% skill. Who do you expect to win, all other things being equal? Now compare one person with 130% skill vs. someone with 90% skill. Now who wins most of the time? The flat percentage difference between the two is identical, both cases represent someone who knows *considerably* more than his opponent; yet in the first case the *practical* difference is dramatic, in the second it's trivial. IMO, therefore, the "arbitrary" skill level breakpoint makes a big difference -- one 90% vs *two* 65% gives a distinct bonus to the higher skill that's not represented by the single 130% value. >Seems to me (now) that if someone wants to split attacks they should be able >to do so and just take the reduced chance consequences. I also wonder about >the strict division of the %ile between the chances. Other game systems give >a reduced chance but not that much reduced. Hero, for instance, makes it a -2 >roll on a bell curve, which can be no problem or a big problem, depending. >White Wolf and D6 subtract a die from the roll, which can be a major change >or minor, depending on how many dice you are rolling. > >All of these are, of course, bell curve systems instead of linear ones, but d& >d 3e is linear, and also uses similar subtractions instead of divisions. > >I'm looking for an elegant solution, not just a brute force one like >"-10%iles per extra person attacked." But that might be the only one >available. Using my system of "successes," one could increase the number of >successes needed to hit each extra person. But that might be too drastic. I always thought DragonQuest (2nd edition) had the best combination of "elegance" and "detail" I've yet seen in a RPG combat system, although I think *overall* I prefer the RQ3 system for its additional detail, at the price of additional complexity and some "clunkiness". If you're not familiar with it, DQ uses a straight percentile roll, linearly modified for skills, characteristics and situational modifiers; very similar to the RQ rules, really. The *major* difference being that instead of RQ's 12-second round, with order of actions solely determined by SR, DQ uses a 5-second round (normally only 1 attack per round) with order determined by "initiative" which unlike RQ is not modified by weapon type but *is* modified by skill level. (In DQ, also, there is no separate "parry" roll; rather it's abstracted into a "defense" value that's applied much the same way as "Defense" was used in RQ2.) Thus, in RQ, he who is faster, bigger and using the bigger weapon will usually attack first, regardless of skill level; in DQ, he who is faster and more skilled will attack first. Regarding multiple attacks with a single weapon (or any other "special" maneuvers), DQ uses basically the RQ approach of special cases -- if you want to do "x", you need to fulfil these conditions and your chance is modified by "y", and if it works it works, otherwise too bad. IIRC, there were three ways you could get multiple attacks in DQ -- (1) if your AG stat was super-high, you could do double the normal number of actions of *any* type; (2) using certain weapons (generally large slashing types) and facing multiple opponents, you could do a "sweep" attack (much the same as the "sweep attack" rules in RQ3); and (3) upon achieving a certain skill level with a particular weapon you could do multiple attacks, but there may have been additional restrictions/requirements that I can't recall just now. Any way, I hope that might be of some use to you in your ruminations. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "And now, the most instantly unappealing character in film history." ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ *************************************************************************** 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, 16 Mar 2001 09:35:50 -0500 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers > Steve Perrin wrote: > The only question still in my mind (and I wrote the > original rules) is whether the increase in attack > %ile given by Fanaticism gives you the ability > to split attacks when it kicks you over 100%. The conceptual distinction seems to fit right into the previous discussion... whether the spell increases focus, the essential skill, or fury, the chance to hit. I could easily distinguish Fanaticism as increased focus (skill) while Berserk is increased rage (chance). Still, a 50% skill bonus is a lot, especially for a 1 pt spell. There is no direct equal in Champions, but it might translate as +3 or +4 OCV and Berserk would be even greater. I am currently working on modified Champions rules to make it play more like RQ so that the flexible powers rules can be used for heroic abilities and HW feats. This also changes the balance of many RQ spells since Champions set power costs for 'balance' quite differently from RQ. > Of course, I am still thinking about getting rid of > the artificial 100% line. Seems to me (now) that if > someone wants to split attacks they should be able > to do so and just take the reduced chance consequences. This is certainly my preference. The bigger a threshold, the more it affects player decisions. D&D has levels and RQ had 90% Mastery and the stat groupings for SR, while Champions is just a long sliding scale with many small thresholds and now HW is also. My complaint with HW is mainly the coarseness of granularity and the lack of simulation. Also, HW is not really a linear system. The % gain for +1 skill can range from 0% to almost 8% with the big increases occurring in the range of 2 to 12 for each mastery level. Furthermore, having the lower roll win when both succeed causes most of the non-linear effects and removes much of the advantage of having a 5 to 10 point higher skill. I find that at equal levels of mastery, rolling less than the Ref is *ALL* that matters unless he rolls high enough to miss. The game is more linear and skill differences are more noticeable if you reverse and let the higher roll win when both succeed. I've done the %ile analysis, but haven't play-tested the results yet. > I also wonder about the strict division of the %ile > between the chances. Other game systems give a reduced > chance but not that much reduced. > I'm looking for an elegant solution, not just a brute > force one like "-10%iles per extra person attacked." Part of this question is whether you consider it hard to fight multiple targets. With Champions your opponents are near your skill level and the -2 will usually make a difference of around -25%. In RQ, much larger skill differences are possible and allowing multiple attacks makes even more sense, but I don't think the modifier should be any less than - -25%, and shouldn't be greater than -50%. Skill multipliers are a small reward for players with higher skill, but skill dividers are an equally greater penalty. Your simplest choice is just to split your attack chance among your opponents and then add relative position modifiers, so the guy with a 130% chance splits 60% again A and 70% against B, but A is being attacked from behind and that attack gets unshielded or rear attack modifiers. The Berserker with the modified 210% chance can attack A, B, and C with 70% each. I don't like this quite as much as a -40% penalty for each additional target, which is also pretty simple and allows more targets to be attacked starting at a lower skill level. > Using my system of "successes," one could increase the > number of successes needed to hit each extra person. > But that might be too drastic. That is definitely very drastic since specials are 20% of hit chance. Bob Stancliff A weak memory, but still a mathematician. *************************************************************************** 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, 16 Mar 2001 09:47:49 -0500 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers > I always thought DragonQuest (2nd edition) had the > best combination of "elegance" and "detail" I've yet > seen in a RPG combat system, although I think > *overall* I prefer the RQ3 system for its additional > detail, at the price of additional complexity and > some "clunkiness". DQ does have some very nice combat rules, though they tend to get misplaced in the 'verbiage'. The special maneuvers for RQ4 had the same problem with clutter, but the maneuvers were nice. DQ set arbitrarily low maximum skill levels with upper limits on nearly anything. Bob Stancliff *************************************************************************** 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, 16 Mar 2001 13:45:23 EST From: SPerrin@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers - --part1_4e.12e2d847.27e3b943_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/16/01 7:01:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, STANCLIF@rgp.ufl.edu writes: > > > Using my system of "successes," one could increase the > > number of successes needed to hit each extra person. > > But that might be too drastic. > > That is definitely very drastic since specials are 20% of hit > chance. > Ah, but I am not talking about the old style RQ 20% specials. My system these days is: within skill %ile = 1 success half of skill %ile = 2 successes 1/10 of skill %ile = 3 successes 01 (or higher with real high skill %ile) = 4 successes Compare rolled attack and defensive %iles to see how many successes are counted. Extra successes gets you specials. It's all in the rules I have archived with the list master. So under the rules I'm considering, if Cosmo the Merry Munchkin is fighting two trolls, and has an attack of 80%, he could attack both, but would lose one success (essentially meaning he would have to roll under 40% to hit at all, never mind the opponents' defensive rolls). Using a variation on your suggestion, if he lost 40 %iles, then he would still, coincidentally enough, have a 40% chance, but he would still get 1 success on a roll of 40, 2 successes on a roll of 20, 3 successes on a roll of 04 and 4 successes on a roll of 01. The latter is probably fairer, but takes a bit more computation. Steve Perrin, still thinking - --part1_4e.12e2d847.27e3b943_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/16/01 7:01:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,
STANCLIF@rgp.ufl.edu writes:


> Using my system of "successes," one could increase the
> number of successes needed to hit each extra person.
> But that might be too drastic.

   That is definitely very drastic since specials are 20% of hit
chance.


Ah, but I am not talking about the old style RQ 20% specials. My system these
days is:

within skill %ile = 1 success
half of skill %ile = 2 successes
1/10 of skill %ile = 3 successes
01 (or higher with real high skill %ile) = 4 successes

Compare rolled attack and defensive %iles to see how many successes are
counted. Extra successes gets you specials.

It's all in the rules I have archived with the list master.

So under the rules I'm considering, if Cosmo the Merry Munchkin is fighting
two trolls, and has an attack of 80%, he could attack both, but would lose
one success (essentially meaning he would have to roll under 40% to hit at
all, never mind the opponents' defensive rolls).

Using a variation on your suggestion, if he lost 40 %iles, then he would
still, coincidentally enough, have a 40% chance, but he would still get 1
success on a roll of 40,  2 successes on a roll of 20, 3 successes on a roll
of 04 and 4 successes on a roll of 01.

The latter is probably fairer, but takes a bit more computation.

Steve Perrin, still thinking - --part1_4e.12e2d847.27e3b943_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: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 13:54:50 +1100 From: Bruce Probst Subject: [RQ-RULES] RuneQuest & DragonQuest (longish) On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:47:49 -0500, Robert Stancliff wrote: >DQ does have some very nice combat rules, though they tend to get >misplaced in the 'verbiage'. As a wargame grognard, the DQ rules are refreshingly crystal-clear to me, in most cases ... but I can see how it can put people off not used to the "rules-case" style. >The special maneuvers for RQ4 had the same >problem with clutter, but the maneuvers were nice. DQ set arbitrarily low >maximum skill levels with upper limits on nearly anything. I did say it was the *combat* system that I liked ... actually there are many things about the DQ Skill Rank system I *do* like, but the arbitrary cut-off at certain levels was not one of them. (Amongst other things, it makes it bloody hard to add new weapons into the game.) One of my earliest House Rules for DQ was removing the skill limits, just making the XP cost for "above normal" levels very high -- so only the most dedicated would bother. I could waffle on about DQ for hours, but this is not the forum ... waffling on about RQ seems slightly more productive . I would make the comment, though, that if someone was looking for a *generic* FRPG, not tied to any particular world-system, with a "standard D&D-like sword & sorcery approach but without arbitrary character classes and levels", they could do much worse than study DQ -- just make sure you get the *2nd* edition (preferably, the Bantam paperback edition). 1st edition has a seriously flawed and clunky combat system, along with other problems; 3rd edition was emasculated by TSR. The Bantam printing of 2nd edition is preferable because it incorporates a number of minor changes and errata *not* present in the SPI editions (the Bantam edition would be more accurately described as "version 2.1"). You can also now download the never-published-but-should-have-been "Arcane Wisdom" supplement, with several extra Colleges of Magic and some advanced magic rules -- see the "DQN-List" group on YahooGroups (formerly eGroups). [What *I* would do these days if I wanted to run that type of game, would be to use the RQ3 rules but modify the background to make use of the DQ Colleges (as Sorcery, modified somewhat), while adding Cults (Divine Magic only) for whatever religions I decided to use in the game, and making Spirit Magic much, much less common.] [CC'd to the DQN-List since people there might be interested ....] - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "Hey, someone turn off the fat rotating guy." ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ *************************************************************************** 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, 19 Mar 2001 13:54:14 EST From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: [RQ-RULES] Familiars - --part1_35.1243513e.27e7afd6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi gang, I've been going over Sandy's Sorcery Rules, doing a lil modifying, and getting them ready to drop into my campaign. Anyhow, I was reading over the Discussion of Sandy's Sorcery posted on the WWWeb, and came across a statement by Sandy that artificial figurines are reasonably popular Familiars among certain groups of Sorcerers. Well, that got me to wondering about just how a figurine would move about. Once the INT and DEX and all had been Enchanted into the Familiar, would the Familiar be able to move about under its own power, or would it need to use an Animate spell on itself or somesuch? -Ken- - --part1_35.1243513e.27e7afd6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  Hi gang,
  I've been going over Sandy's Sorcery Rules, doing a lil modifying, and
getting them ready to drop into my campaign. Anyhow, I was reading over the
Discussion of Sandy's Sorcery posted on the WWWeb, and came across a  
statement by Sandy that artificial figurines are reasonably popular Familiars
among certain groups of Sorcerers.
  Well, that got me to wondering about just how a figurine would move about.
Once the INT and DEX and all had been Enchanted into the Familiar, would the
Familiar be able to move about under its own power, or would it need to use
an Animate spell on itself or somesuch?
 -Ken-

- --part1_35.1243513e.27e7afd6_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. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #11 ************************************ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.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.