Al.

At first glance that LOOKS like a signifiant paring down of the skills list. Then I realised that those are only the 'Knowledge' skills. Then I realised what my first house rule will be for RQG.

It is a gorgeous looking character sheet.

23 hours ago, g33k said:

I just see yours as a somewhat-more-polite version of mine.     

Or mine was just a long-winded way of saying 'I agree'

On 2/4/2018 at 7:38 AM, g33k said:

Wow... so if it was "mere" stupidity. it was a pretty intense level of stupid.

Now, I am not a fan of Mongoose nor an apologist for them.

But I can see that might have been an innocent (albeit daft) mistake. Their model did (maybe still does) rely on churning out a huge number of books each month, often without proper proofreading. In that high turnover environment, it might be possible to be working on the default setting for their other work and just not realising or checking that this one property is licensed on different lines.

On 8/21/2017 at 3:48 PM, g33k said:

Not to worry, lad!

At least nobody has come to point out to these sad longbow-fetishists how superior the mounted Mongol horse-archers were, militarily, and how lucky the brits were never to face THEM...   

<dives for cover before the flames become nukes>

 

No flames. Agreement.

Mind you promoting officers on the basis of competence rather than birthright, being entirely self-sufficient in the field, using frozen rivers as roads and and and, probably had as much to do with the Mongol horde's success as having a heavier draw bow which could be shot from horseback.

Glad to see you wrote Brits not English, Nyd hyder ond bwa is Cymric not Welsc

My view (of little enough worth I am sure)

One can use the scientific method on Glorantha

Observation, logical analysis, adopting the model which is best supported by available evidence and willingness to change one's opinion on which model is best supported

It's just that the fundamental forces are different, and so the evidence from experimental observation will likewise differ

This is perhaps not a direct answer, but relevent I hope.

As already mentioned Aldryami animate war trees which are as powerful as cave trolls

And don't Dryads have control over all creatures born in their glades?

In which case even without the rather wonderful flavour ideas of muddling darksense and secure plant-based communication above (and elfbows acting as MP batteries); I'll match my Allosaurus against any size of Troll in hand-to-hand combat

On 12/8/2017 at 3:34 AM, g33k said:

<shrug>

Once you step away from the RAW in an effort to "shape" your rolls, I'm willing to use most any of the traditional dice.  So it was as serious IMHO as any other non-RAW suggestion.    

 

Inspired by g33k's can-do attitude; this week I tried for characters created for a quick six week story arc:

Roll 1d20, treat any odd number as a 10, even numbers as rolled

Vast majority of characteristics started at 10 (more than the statistically predicted 55%) with a few very extreme outliers. It was interesting, I'm not sure whether I'll use it again but interesting.

Historically my (pretty unreliable) memory is that 2d6+6 for Int and Siz began in RQII Trollpak

The earliest sighting I can recall for '2d6+6 for everything' came from an article or letter's page letter in a very old edition of White Dwarf about PC Knights in PenDragon

If you worry about the higher than average average why not go for '2d6+3 for everything'? That reduces the swinginess and keeps average* average

Then if you want to give access to the highest level of characteristic for heroes allow a couple of +3 modifiers for species/culture/homeland/caste/vocation/cyberware as desired

* for a given arithmetical model of average

I've played with what could be described as a 'more criticals' rule for years

Specials are under half rather than under one-fifth

Criticals are under one-tenth rather than under one-twentieth

Death happens on an 01

I really like it. But then it does what I want (increases the frequency of special results).

I've certainly had discussions with many people on boards who hate it, because they don't see the need for more frequent special results (one even said something along the lines of 'but then I'd feel gutted if I only rolled under my skill rather than under half!)

6 hours ago, SDLeary said:

I somewhat like this, but not the +20 to hit. Perhaps +10% for a three round, +5 for a 5 round; assuming of course handheld weapons... bipods, tripods, pintles reducing or negating the penalty.

Also, AFAICT, bursts over 5 rounds tend to be for suppression fire (or at least they are supposed to be), and I think the lethality rating and the area effect from Delta Green for such weapons fits better.

SDLeary

 

I chose a static +20 simply because it has form (the Ship rules in Elric! give a flat +20 to Sailing skill for the faster boat).

The spirit of that rule also appeals to me. I have no doubt that more complexity might lead to more believability.

Another in a long line of house rules I've used so long that I forgot it was a houserule:

Add +20 to chance to hit

Success hits with 1 round

Special success hits with a random number (3 round burst 1d3, 10 round burst roll 1d10 etc)

Critical success every round hits

I even drew up a list of burst size for different weapons, but I don't think that I've ever used it (one more thing to try and find in the excitement of an RPG combat, so one more thing left in a pile of papers)

The whole point of auto fire is to increase the chance of hitting a moving target by a minimally qualified shooter at least once rather than peppering it (that's why fighter aircraft and ship CIWS often have auto cannons with insanely high rates of fire to try and compensate for the speed and changes of firer and target and why modern* infantry tactics talk about beaten zones rather than trying to pick off individuals. There's also a psychological factor here: it is quite hard to get one human to deliberately aim at and kill another one)

A really skilled shooter will get the whole burst on target (I remember my Sgt demonstrating by putting a whole clip into the centre ring on fully automatic after my division were congratulating ourselves for managing to get our (5) rounds semi-automatic into the same qualifying ring and thinking that we were all now fully paid up marksmen). But I don't think that there is any need to go the GURPS route with many new rules and modifiers; the degrees of success mechanic already covers that.

*I say modern, the last one I read was 20 odd years ago, so things may well have changed

The engaged by fire point is an interesting one, inspired by watching Luke and Leia in their shoot out with Stormtroopers in the Death Star I used the PenDragon style opposed roll for firefights (the idea being that each side is trying to keep the other side's head down and prevent them shooting accurately as much as they are attempting to actually hit them) and it sort of works.

Thanks for that reply, many ideas to ponder and possibly purloin.

A couple of questions out of curiosity:

No mention of Siz; is that because you streamlined the characteristic list and folded the game effects into Str? Or just because there is no skill associated with it and so it wasn't worth mentioning in this context?

I get that the untrained base scores are at (characteristic) x3 but I cannot work out how the magnitude of the training bonus is calculated. Clearly it is nothing as simple as +40/+20/+10, so there must be a reason for the granularity, but I find myself unable to reverse engineer it from that post!

I LOVE OpenQuest

I love the whole ethos of it, I think many of the design decisions are brilliant

But I really dislike the (inspired by MRQ) skill names

I did a bit of a bodge swapping in skills from Elric! and it kind of worked. However I'm now thinking of swapping skills out and using careers (as per RuneQuest Slayers or Barbarians of Lemuria). I have what I think is a workable method of gluing to two sets of rules together. Has anyone tried this? How did you get on? Any cautions or warnings to share?

On 06/09/2017 at 9:55 PM, styopa said:

Oh I'd entirely disagree.  There was a rather significant difference in results possible.

We used that hit loc table for missiles, thrusting weapons, and spells (where needed) making the choice of such weapons/attacks a more tactically interesting one...

/unsurprised it was dropped, however.

Agreed on all accounts

It's one of those delightful quirks which crop up in D100 games which add an illusion of realism

We used it for missiles, spells, spears and fists for years

Nowadays I only use the (MRQ) Hit Location Chart for Major Wounds

Rationalising down to one chart will do no harm

(All IMMOO obvs.)

On 06/09/2017 at 5:20 AM, styopa said:

#5 SR0 problem: frankly, I find the entire SR system RAW backwards as hell.  I know they're not going to change it for me, but the "SR get smaller as you get faster and larger" capping at 0 at relatively puny values is just dumb.  Sorry Steve Perrin,

Interestingly, Steve Perrin (publicly) dropped SR from his evolution of RuneQuest than he runs (or ran) and plays (or played) years ago

I'd be interested in hearing whether he is a lone voice at NewChaoisum arguing to get rid of a rule that he himself wrote way back when

20 hours ago, Simlasa said:

What don't you like about the aiming rules? An additional 7% to skill for each 5 dex ranks spent, IIRC... or do you mean 'called shots'... as in trying to hit a specific body location?

Both if I am honest

But I was originally specifically referring to the 'called shots' rule 

All IMMOO of course but I much prefer the Mythras roll at full skill and if you achieve a Special or Critical you can choose to strike a specific location to the MW take a big penalty to your skill roll and success means hitting your chosen location

On 10/08/2017 at 3:41 PM, Scout said:

I want something akin to 'Feats' for my MW campaign (I'm the GM); it's an area I think d100 games could really benefit from. To that end I've found this game:

Sabre

It has something like 200 'Talents' in it and I'm slowly converting them over to Magic World. 

One thing though, what does Magic World use for an 'Acrobatics' skill?

Craft (Tumble) would be MW's equivalent of Acrobatics

But (if I'm reading this correctly) the way that Acrobatics is used in Xd20 games in combat is to avoid attacks of opportunity and similar; so you'd probably use the Dodge skill

I've seen other attempts to graft Xd20 feats onto xd100 games. To me they go for a different approach or philosophy. Not wrong, just different

In d100 games anyone can try anything

In d20 games, characters have niches and roles and you must have specific skills to try specific things

(Interestingly the newest d20 game D&D5e goes the d100 route, many things which WERE feats can now be done by anyone i.e. anyone can finesse)

I do however agree that the current baseline is a bit clunky and unsatisfactory (the rules for aimed shots leap out to me in this light)

The three attempts which I think have been successful are:

PenDragon Pass had a lovely idea where if you wanted to do a stunt or feat you described it and then rolled against half the skill. Success is a critical and Failure is a fumble.

In RQ6/Mythras rolling a Special or Critical allows you to choose a stunt. I think that the authors gave us what we asked for rather than what we wanted by listing so many of them.

In RQ LoN Ki skills almost worked (I'm being superficial here) allow you to spend a magic point to achieve a Critical success but you then had to have an additional Ki-skill for each skill over 90%

On 08/08/2017 at 1:49 PM, Scout said:

Page 15:

STR /2 for dodge don’t seem right. Wouldn't it make more sense under DEX /2? Would it break anything if I opted for DEX?

Dodge is an interesting one. Since the base skill is Dex x2. So Dex has more impact on Dodge than Str anyway RAW.

On 31/05/2017 at 2:05 AM, olskool said:

 I also figure human Characteristic Scores by rolling 3D6+2, making the range of Characteristics from 5 to 20 (the species maximum) in my game. 

Please consider that stolen. More please.

On 30/05/2017 at 9:23 PM, Trifletraxor said:

I've got something to learn here!

Can characters choose freely btw the damage modifiers, or are they tied up to weapon type?

Tied to a combination of mode of attack and weapon type

So jabbing for the sensitive spots with the end of a jo-stick allows finesse but sweeping it around like a long, thin club gets Brawn

My Damage Bonus

• Find the average of Siz and Str (so in your system just take Str)
• Subtract ten
• That is the maximum rollable on the character's damage bonus die

i.e.

• STR bonus
• 11 +1
• 12 +d2
• 13 +d3
• 14 +d4
• 15 +d5
• 16-17 +d6
• 18-19 +d8
• 20 +d10
• 28 +3d6
• etc etc

I too drop weapon damage for negative damage bonuses rather than apply a penalty (I did play with raising weapon damage for a positive bonus but then I lost the distinctions between Crush, Impale, etc Special Successes)

Inspired by Chaot's Magic world character sheet, I have just recently added a Finesse damage bonus which is calculated the same but using Dex not Str (or average of Siz and Str) and is applied to weapon's where placement is more important than brawn (stabby daggers and swords basically)

Cool (or 'kewl' as the young people say)

The Bronze Grimoire had  a spell called 'Candle Stripling' to see what great fate awaited the target

There was a throwaway comment along the lines of 'x years there will be no result as the child will be dead'

If you are able to run a long enough campaign (or have a light hand with flashbacks) the PCs might be the only people who Candle Stripling reveals Any kind of future for

3 hours ago, colinabrett said:

Regarding doubling-up on some skills.

It's just gut instinct for me but "Hide/Move Quietly" or "Repair/Devise" look untidy in a skill list. Can we rename the combined skills such as

• Hide/Move Quietly becomes Stealth
• Repair/Devise becomes Contraptions
• Sail/Swim (from Al's example) becomes Watercraft
• Scent/Taste becomes Sense (as per the BGB)

I can't think of many more that could be combined and the above are just suggestions.

Colin

The doubled skills DO look untidy but voice of my experience here (and that may not reflect yours) it does make it blindingly obvious to players what is and what is not covered by the skill

Other doubling ups as follows (all caveat author, there is a decision made by each pairing and I am more than open to the viewpoint that in your game X does not belong with Y because Z)

Brawl/Wrestle

Climb/Jump

Dance/Dodge

Hide/Sneak

Juggle/Tumble

Sail/Swim

Bargain/Fast Talk

Conceal/Disguise

Inspire/Intimidate

Musician/Sing

Evaluate/Insight

Known World/Navigate

Million Spheres/Unknown East

Natural World

Physical World

Physik/Potions

Drive/Ride

Pick Lock/Trap

Scribe

Balance/Listen

Scent/Taste

Search/Track

What annoyed me about the MRQ add two stats to get your starting value is this:

Right at the beginning of playtesting  I asked how this was going to be addressed, which of the legacy systems from different BRP games would be used?

Add two scores for a category?

Base + modifier?

Base with no modifier?

Or worst of all worlds the incredibly faffy ElfQuest thing where you have to add two scores individually for every single skill?

And AT THAT POINT Mongoose chose the ElfQuest version. Which (regardless of effectiveness or not as a mechanic) just highlighted my complete inability to influence RPG design!